Moore v. Roddie
| Decision Date | 14 August 1918 |
| Docket Number | 14770. |
| Citation | 174 P. 648,103 Wash. 386 |
| Parties | MOORE et ux. v. RODDIE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; J. T. Ronald Judge.
Action by John Moore and wife against F. S. Roddie. Judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Walter S. Fulton, of Seattle, for appellants.
Roberts Wilson & Skeel and Farrell, Kane & Stratton, all of Seattle for respondent.
In this action appellants recovered damages for personal injuries caused by respondent's automobile. Respondent owned two automobiles, a touring car and a Metz roadster, used principally for business. One Wakelin was employed to drive both cars when occasion arose, both day and evening. The cars were kept at a garage some distance from the home. On the evening of the accident respondent had the touring car at home. It is claimed by respondent that the driver, without his knowledge and consent, took the Metz car from the garage to go to his own home for his supper, and that this he had permission to do when required to return for further duty for his master, but not otherwise; and that on this occasion he had been notified at about 6 o'clock he would not be needed further that evening. While he was returning to the garage east on Pike street and at the intersection of Terry avenue, Seattle, he collided with Mrs. Moore, who was walking across Pike street from the northwest corner of Pike and Terry to Hubbell Place. The testimony shows that the machine was run at an excessive rate of speed, without sounding of the horn or giving any warning of its approach. Respondent pleaded contributory negligence, in that Mrs. Moore was not at a street crossing. At the close of the evidence the respondent challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. The cause was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict of $5,500 in favor of appellants. The court denied a motion for new trial, but granted judgment for respondent non obstante veredicto, which appellants assign as error.
The chief question is whether the owner of an automobile is responsible for the negligence of a driver of a machine when operating the same for the owner or as his agent. The driver was employed to hold himself ready at all times to drive one of the cars. The mere fact that he used the Metz car to go to his supper and to return to the garage cannot relieve him of the employment as an agent of the owner. Under the evidence it was a question for the jury. Rem. Code, § 5562-33, provides:
'Nothing in this act shall be construed to curtail or abridge the right of any person to prosecute a civil action for damages by reason of injury to person or property resulting from the negligent use of the public highways by the driver or operator of any motor vehicle or its owner or his employé or agent, and the owner of such vehicle shall be equally liable for the negligent operation thereof, when at the time of such injury the vehicle was operated by the agent of such owner, or by any person employed by him for the purpose of operating such vehicle.'
An automobile is a dangerous instrumentality and, if the owner intrusts it to another or leaves it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
...Co., 172 Wash. 396, 398, 20 P.2d 39, which was overruled by Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., 13 Wash.2d 28, 123 P.2d 780. Moore v. Roddie, 103 Wash. 386, 174 P. 648, overruled by Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., Wash.2d 28, 48, 53, 123 P.2d 780. Watson v. Barnard, 105 Wash. 536, 178 P. 477, o......
-
Bradley v. S.L. Savidge, Inc.
...and there was no evidence or inference from evidence upon which the jury was justified in holding appellant liable.' In Moore v. Roddie, 103 Wash. 386, 174 P. 648, 650, reversed the judgment of a trial court which had granted a motion for judgment n. o. v. in a personal injury action. The o......
-
Meyn v. Dulaney-miller Auto Co
...Co, supra; Zondler v. Foster Mfg. & Supply Co, 277 Pa. 98, 120 A. 705; Puccia v. Sevigne, 258 Mass. 234, 154 N.E. 765; Moore v. Roddie, 103 Wash. 386, 174 P. 648, modified 106 Wash. 548, 180 P. 879; Wrights-man v. Glidewell, 210 Mo.App. 367, 239 S. W. 574; Ferris v. McArdle, 92 N.J.Law, 580......
-
State v. McCollum, 28809.
...Co., 172 Wash. 396, 398, 20 P.2d 39, which was overruled by Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., 13 Wash.2d 28, 123 P.2d 780. Moore v. Roddie, 103 Wash. 386, 174 P. 648, overruled by Bradley v. S. L. Savidge, Inc., 13 Wash.2d 28, 48, 53, 123 P.2d 780. [17 Wn.2d 190] Watson v. Barnard, 105 Wash. ......