Maurer v. Brown, 412.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1930
• Docket Number: No. 412.,412.
• Citation: 149 A. 336
• Parties: MAURER et al v. BROWN et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

149 A. 336

MAURER et al

v. BROWN et al.

No. 412.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 7, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court.

Appeal from District Court.

Action by Fred H. Mauer and another against James Brown and the Newark Drive-Ur-Self Company, Incorporated. From an adverse judgment, defendant last named appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Argued January term, 1930, before PARKER, BLACK, and BODINE, JJ.

McCarter & English, of Newark, for appellant.

PARKER, J.

This case arises out of a collision of two automobiles at a street intersection. The plaintiff Fred H. Maurer was driving his own automobile, and the other car, which was the property of the appellant corporation, was driven by the defendant James Brown. At the trial it appeared without dispute that the defendant was a corporation organized for the purpose of hiring out automobiles by the day, hour, or mile to customers desiring to use them, and substantially in the same manner as formerly the proprietor of a livery stable would hire out a horse and carriage to a customer to be driven by him. The hiring in the present case was in writing, and the writing was offered and received in evidence. The corporation made it a rule not to rent any car to any one but a duly licensed driver holding his license from the commissioner of motor vehicles of this state. Brown was such a licensed driver, exhibited his license, and the car was rented to him for his personal use, and while he was so using it the accident occurred. There was a judgment for damages against Brown of which he does not complain. The corporate defendant showed the above facts and asked for judgment on the ground that as bailor of the car under a contract of hiring it was not liable for the negligence of its bailee; but the trial judge did not take this view of the matter and directed judgment against the corporation as well as against Brown. We think this was clearly erroneous. The settled rule seems to be that at least in the absence of circumstances tending to show negligence of a bailor in renting to an irresponsible bailee, or the like, the bailor of a chattel is not liable for its negligent use by his bailee whereby damages are inflicted on a third party. 6 C. J. 1151; Herlihy v. Smith, 116 Mass. 265; Doran v. Thomsen, 74 N. J. Law, 445, 66 A. 897; Id., 76 N. J. Law, 754, 71 A. 296, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, 131 Am. St. Rep. 677; 38 C. J. 94; Flaherty v. Helfont, 123 Me. 134, 122 A. at page 180; Groatz v. Day, 81 N. H. 417, 128 A. 334; Gavin v. Oohn, 136 A. 330, 5 N. J. Misc. R. 296; Marshall v. Fenton, 107 Conn. 728, 142 A. 403. In Rodenburg v. Clinton Auto & Garage Co., 84...