Menton v. L. Patterson Mercantile Co.

• Citation: 145 Minn. 310,176 N.W. 991
• Decision Date: 09 April 1920
• Docket Number: Nos. 21615,21616.,s. 21615
• Parties: MENTON v. L. PATTERSON MERCANTILE CO. et al. (two cases).
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

145 Minn. 310

176 N.W. 991

MENTON

v.L. PATTERSON MERCANTILE CO. et al. (two cases).

Nos. 21615, 21616.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 9, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Blue Earth County; W. L. Comstock, Judge.

Separate actions by Ida Menton and by Frank Menton against the L. Patterson Mercantile Company and one Lavin. Actions tried together, and verdicts directed for defendant company, and verdict returned in each action against Lavin. Motion for new trial as against defendant company denied, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Mogle v. A. W. Scott Co., 174 N. W. 832, recently filed, holding the owner not liable for injuries arising from the negligent operation of his automobile by a servant or employé using it for his personal pleasure or convenience, though with the consent and permission of the owner, and limiting the rule applied to the ‘family automobile,’ laid down in Ploetz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169, 144 N. W. 745, followed and applied.

On the evidence presented by the record, a verdict for defendant was properly directed by the court. J. E. Regan, of Mankato, and Moonan & Moonan, of Waseca, for appellants.

Barrows, Stewart & Metcalf, of St. Paul (S. B. Wilson, of Mankato, and V. E. Bradford, of Minneapolis, of counsel), for respondents.

BROWN, C. J.

Defendant L. Patterson Mercantile Company is a corporation doing the business indicated by its name in the city of Mankato. The company owned and used an auto truck for the delivery of goods sold to patrons and other like purposes connected with its business affairs. Defendant Lavin was in its employ and made use of the truck for the purposes stated. On June 23, 1917, which appears to have been a holiday, Lavin took the truck, with the acquiescence and consent of the company, for the purpose of conveying himself and friends, together with refreshments, to a lake resort near Mankato, there to spend the day as one of recreation and pleasure. Intoxicating liquor was included in the list of refreshments. Lavin so negligently and carelessly ran and operated the truck that it collided with an automobile driven by plaintiff Frank Menton, in which his wife was riding, thereby causing them serious injury. The brought separate actions for damages thus occasioned against both Lavin and the mercantile company. The actions were tried together and at the conclusion thereof verdicts were directed in favor of the company on the ground that the evidence failed to make a case of liability against it. The jury returned a verdict in each action against...