Lafond v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 04 March 1930
• Citation: 149 A. 600
• Parties: LAFOND v. RICHARDSON.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

149 A. 600

LAFOND

v. RICHARDSON.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Coos.

March 4, 1930.

Transferred from Superior Court, Coos County; Oakes, Judge.

Case for negligence by Ovila Lafond against Mary L. Richardson to recover for damage to plaintiff's automobile caused by collision with the defendant's car, which was being driven by defendant's son. Trial by jury, and verdict for plaintiff. Transferred upon defendant's exceptions to denial of her motion for nonsuit and a directed verdict.

Judgment for defendant.

Ovide J. Coulombe and Ira W. Thayer, both of Berlin, for plaintiff.

Jesse F. Libby, of Gorham, for defendant.

BRANCH, J.

The motion for a nonsuit should have been granted because there is no evidence from which it could be found that the defendant's son was acting as her agent at the time of the accident. The plaintiff drew from the defendant's son on the witness stand a statement that the automobile which he was driving was "a family car" and apparently relied at the trial upon the "family purpose" doctrine to charge the defendant with liability for her son's negligence. Ever since the decision of this court in Moulton v. Langley, 81 N. H. 138, 124 A. 70, if not before, it has been generally understood that the "family purpose" doctrine does not prevail in this jurisdiction. The strong intimation to that effect contained in the opinion above referred to is now confirmed.

In apparent recognition of this situation, counsel for the plaintiff have not, in this court, urged the family car theory, but have sought to discover in the evidence a sufficient basis for a finding of agency under the normal rules of law governing that relationship. The results of their search are embodied in their brief as follows: "Reducing the evidence of agency to a concise statement it appeared that the driver of the car was the son of defendant; was 19 years old; that he lived at home; that his mother permitted him to drive the car, which was used as a family car; that he had before driven the car with the same people in it who were friends of his mother's and at times when his mother was in the car; that on the day of the accident he took the car from home with his mother's permission who knew that he was going to Plymouth and knew whom he was going to take with him."

This will not suffice. Although the two ladies who accompanied the son were said to be friends of his mother, there is no room for the conclusion that their presence in the car was due to that fact or that the trip was instigated by the defendant. It is too plain...