Mogle v. A.W. Scott Company
| Decision Date | 21 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 21,446 |
| Citation | 174 N.W. 832,144 Minn. 173 |
| Parties | CHARLES F. MOGLE v. A.W. SCOTT COMPANY AND ANOTHER |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $3,318 for injuries received from an automobile of defendant company driven by its servant. The separate answer of defendant company alleged that plaintiff and the Minneapolis Street Railway Company were subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; that if the injuries were caused solely by defendant's negligence and were caused under circumstances that created negligence or liability on the part of defendant for damages, plaintiff had no right to recover from defendant any damages whatsoever except those provided in the compensation act, and had no right to have the amount of such compensation determined by any method other than that provided in the act. The case was tried before Fish, J., who at the close of the testimony granted defendant company's motion for a directed verdict in its favor, on the ground that the testimony shows that the car was not being used in the course of the servant's employment and for the uses and purposes for which the automobile was kept by defendant. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Master not liable for negligent use of automobile by servant for pleasure.
1. This court sanctions the doctrine that the head of a family, who provides for the recreation of the members of his family by furnishing an automobile for their use and pleasure, is responsible for its negligent use by any one of the family having his permission to drive it. The doctrine is a development of the rules applicable to the relation of master and servant and principal and agent and is not to be extended to cases where an employer permits a favored employee to use for his own pleasure, an automobile kept and ordinarily used in carrying on the employer's business.
Master not liable for negligent use of automobile by servant for pleasure.
2. An employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee who took his automobile to drive out to a park with his family on a holiday when his time did not belong to his employer and negligently ran down and injured a person at a street intersection, even though he had his employer's permission to take the automobile.
R. H Fryberger, for appellant.
Kingman, Cross & Cant, for respondent company.
Action to recover for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the defendant Sobieski in operating an automobile owned by the defendant A. W. Scott Company.
On July 4, 1917, Sobieski, at the direction of J. Walter Scott, the managing officer of the A.W. Scott Company, took an automobile owned by the company to drive from Minneapolis to Wayzata, where he was to do some work for Scott. When the work was finished Scott directed him to drive the car back to Minneapolis and put it in the company's building where it was kept and to which Sobieski had a key. On his return, Sobieski stopped at his house for a noonday dinner and was importuned by his wife to take the car and drive to Minnehaha Park with her and her mother. He at first refused to do so, on the ground that Scott had directed him to take the car back to the place where it was kept. However, he finally yielded to his wife's persuasion, and on the trip to the park negligently ran down and injured the plaintiff. He and the company were joined as defendants.
It was alleged in the complaint that at the time and place of plaintiff's injury, Sobieski was a servant of the Scott Company and in the course and scope of his employment, with full knowledge, permission and acquiescence of the company, was using the automobile in the performance of the purpose and uses for which it was intended and kept.
At the trial plaintiff called a witness by whom he sought to prove that on August 8, 1917, in the course of a conversation with Scott concerning insurance of the automobile, Scott said that Sobieski was given more privileges than other employees of the company and had full charge of the car, and that only occasionally would any of the others run it in the business and never for pleasure, but Sobieski was allowed to use it and frequently took it for the purpose of driving with his family on Sundays and in the evening, and that he was a reliable, careful driver. An objection to the offer was sustained, the court stating that under the allegations of the complaint, insofar as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial