Johnson v. Evans
| Decision Date | 10 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | 20,972 |
| Citation | 170 N.W. 220,141 Minn. 356 |
| Parties | MABEL JOHNSON v. ED EVANS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Norman county to recover $5,300 for injuries received and expenses incurred through alleged negligent driving of defendant's car by his minor son. The answer alleged that the son had no right to operate the car without permission from defendant; that on the evening in question he had no permission to operate it from Ada to Borup and from Borup back to Ada and from Ada to Hadler, and these trips were made without the knowledge or consent of defendant. The case was tried before Grindeland, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Master and servant -- liability for negligence of minor son -- use of automobile.
1. Defendant owned and kept upon his premises a five passenger automobile for business purposes, and also for the comfort and pleasure of the members of his family, and his minor son was authorized and permitted to operate and use it for either purpose. While the son was so using the car, under defendant's permission, his negligent and careless operation thereof caused injury to plaintiff, who was riding therein as his guest. It is held (a) that, though using the car for his own personal pleasure and that of his friends the son was the servant of defendant, within the meaning of the law, and defendant is liable for his negligent misconduct in operating the same; (b) the evidence supports the verdict in finding the son guilty of negligence, and in exonerating plaintiff from the charge of contributory negligence.
Master and servant -- authority of son -- question for jury.
2. The question whether the son departed from or exceeded the authority given him on the particular occasion, to such an extent as to relieve defendant from liability during the period of departure, was properly submitted to the jury, and the evidence supports the verdict thereon.
Master and servant -- presumption from possession of the car.
3. There was no error in the charge of the court to the effect that the possession of the car by the son, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, would be presumed authorized by defendant.
No error.
4. The record presents no reversible error.
Christian G. Dosland, for appellant.
M. A Brattland and Ole J. Vaule, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries in which plaintiff had a verdict and defendant appealed from an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
There is no particular controversy about the facts controlling the result of the action and they are substantially as follows: Defendant owns and operates a farm near the village of Ada, in Norman county. He keeps and maintains upon his premises a five passenger automobile for both pleasure and business purposes; a family car and used for the comfort and pleasure of the family as well as in business affairs. His family consists of himself, wife and two sons, the oldest son being 17 years of age at the time here in question. Prior thereto that son had been permitted to use the car whenever he felt inclined to take some of his friends out for a drive, the permission often being given without special inquiry into the particular purpose or destination the son had in view.
On the day of the accident here complained of defendant gave the son permission to use the car for the purpose, as defendant supposed, of a trip to the village of Ada, a distance of about six miles, though the particulars of the trip were not inquired into by defendant nor disclosed by the son. The plan of the son was to pick up his friend Clarence Monson, a neighbor, and the two to invite their young lady friends to accompany them to a dance at Borup, a village some eight miles south of Ada. The plan was carried out and the party thus made up, plaintiff in this action being the guest and companion of the son, and a Miss Gilbertson the companion of Monson, started in the automobile for the dance at Borup, passing through but not stopping at Ada. They later learned that the dance at Borup had been postponed to some later date, but at the same time were informed that a dance was then in full swing at the village of Hadler, some six miles north of Ada. The automobile was turned about and the party proceeded on the way to Hadler, again passing through but not stopping at Ada. They reached a point some three or four miles north of Ada at about 11 o'clock at night, and at a sharp turn in the road of which the son, who was driving the car, was unaware, the car was wrecked, as the result of which plaintiff was injured.
It may also be stated that the evidence tends to show, though controverted by defendant, that the son was in the habit of taking the car out for business or pleasure without asking permission or consent of defendant. But we dispose of the case on the facts above stated which are not in dispute, and upon the theory that permission was necessary before the son rightfully could take the car out for pleasure purposes.
The negligence charged in the complaint and upon which plaintiff predicated her right of action, is that at the time of the accident the son was driving at a grossly negligent and reckless rate of speed, by reason of which, when confronted with the unexpected turn in the road, he was unable to control the car, and it ran with great speed and violence into the highway ditch, injuring the occupants, and throwing plaintiff, who occupied the front seat, upon and against the windshield, a piece of broken glass from which penetrated and totally destroyed one of her eyes. The other occupants were not so seriously injured.
The defendant contends: (1) That the son had no authority to use the car for pleasure or other purposes, except upon express permission granted by defendant, that such permission was granted on this occasion, but for the limited purpose of a trip to the village of Ada and return, and that when the son went beyond that place he exceeded the authority granted, and thereby relieved defendant from liability for any act of negligence thereafter occurring; (2) that the court erred in certain of its instructions to the jury, and (3) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
1. Assuming the facts to be as contended by defendant, and that the son had no right to use the...
To continue reading
Request your trial