Hannis v. Driver

• Decision Date: 13 December 1917
• Docket Number: 147-1917
• Parties: Hannis v. Driver, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

68 Pa.Super. 548

Hannis v. Driver, Appellant

No. 147-1917

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

December 13, 1917

Argued October 11, 1917

Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co.-1915, No. 4436, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Mary Hannis v. Edwin J. Driver.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Finletter J.

At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff was injured in February 1916, by the alleged negligent operation of an automobile by Arthur Driver, a brother of the defendant, and employed by him as a chauffeur. The evidence showed that Arthur Driver had general permission to use and operate the car for his own purposes when he was not engaged in his brother's business. On the day of the accident he had completed an errand for his employer, and then drove it exclusively on his own business to a number of places some distance apart, and in a direction opposite to that where the garage was located. The accident happened while the automobile was on its way to the garage.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $ 1,500. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned was in refusing defendant's motion for judgment n. o. v.

Ruby R Vale, for appellant. -- It was uncontroverted that the defendant had given his brother, Arthur, general permission to use the automobile for his own purposes, and from this admitted fact the conclusion of law follows that use by Arthur on his own errand created the relation of bailor and bailee between him and the defendant and, consequently, relieved the defendant of all liability for an accident happening during such use: McColligan v. Penna. R. R. Co., 214 Pa. 229; Scheel v. Shaw, 252 Pa. 451; Bard & Wenrich v. Yohn, 26 Pa. 482; Solomon v. Com. Trust Co., Etc., 256 Pa. 55; Graham v. Henderson, 254 Pa. 137.

There is no evidence of a specific order by the defendant that Arthur return the automobile to the garage after a particular use; and even if such order had been given, the liability of the defendant thereby would not be affected, since as bailee it was Arthur's duty to return the automobile to the garage before the relation of bailment could be terminated: Edward's App., 105 Pa. 103; Stiles v. Seaton, 200 Pa. 114; Reading Automobile Co. v. DeHaven, 53 Pa.Super. 344.

Maurice V. Daniels, for appellee. -- The relation of master and servant between the defendant and the driver of the automobile existed at the time of this accident: Graham v. Henderson, 254 Pa. 137; Blaker v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 60 Pa.Super. 56; Jimmo v. Frick, 255 Pa. 353.

Before Orlady, P. J., Henderson, Head, Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ.

OPINION

KEPHART, J.

We have in this appeal the question of the liability of the owner of an automobile for an injury caused by the negligence of the chauffeur who had general permission to use the car and had been given general instructions to return it to the owner's garage when through using it. The chauffeur took the car on an errand for the master. After he had completed this errand he drove the car, exclusively on his own business, to a number of places some distance apart and in a direction opposite to that where the garage was located. The accident happened while returning the car to the garage. We have held that the owner of the car would not be liable for damages occasioned through the negligence of one who had permission to use the car where the accident occurred while the car was in such use though traveling in the direction of the place where the owner kept it: Scheel v. Shaw, 60 Pa.Super. 73; 252 Pa. 451. Where the owner of a car lends or hires it to another and it is wholly under the use, direction and control of the borrower or hirer, the relation of bailor and bailee is created and the bailor is not responsible for the negligent use of the car: Scheel v. Shaw, supra; McColligan v. Penna. R. R. Co., 214 Pa. 229. In such a case the bailment continued during the time the bailee had the use, control and...