Patterson v. Kates

• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Citation: Patterson v. Kates, 152 F. 481 (E.D. Pa. 1907)
• Decision Date: 25 March 1907
• Docket Number: 58,59.
• Parties: PATTERSON v. KATES (two cases).

152 F. 481

PATTERSON v. KATES (two cases).

Nos. 58, 59.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

March 25, 1907

Stanley Williamson and John Boyd Avis, for plaintiffs.

Frank P. Prichard, for defendant.

J. B McPHERSON, District Judge.

The defendant is the owner of an automobile, which had broken down at Egg Harbor, on the way from Atlantic City to Philadelphia. He instructed his driver to repair the machine and bring it to its destination, and, in obedience to these instructions, the driver started from Egg Harbor, passed through Mt. Ephraim, and reached Gloucester, on the Delaware river, intending to take the ferry at that point for Philadelphia. When he reached Gloucester, he went to a saloon kept by one of his friends, where he met a man named Fernley who had business at Northmont, a small settlement about a mile back upon the road to Mt. Ephraim, and asked the driver to take him there in the machine. The driver consented. Two other persons accompanied Fernley, and the road toward Mt Ephraim was thereupon retraced as far as Northmont, or perhaps a little farther. The machine was then turned about to go back to Gloucester, and, on the way, injury was done to the plaintiffs by the negligence of the driver. After regaining Gloucester, the driver resumed his journey to Philadelphia, where he arrived in due course.

There was no dispute about these facts, and with the assent of the parties the question of the driver's negligence was submitted to the jury, and the court reserved for its own determination, as a question of law, whether the defendant is liable for the driver's fault. Obviously, he is liable if the driver's careless act-- namely, running too fast, and in consequence colliding with a horse and buggy upon the highway-- can properly be said to be within the scope of the driver's employment, taking into consideration also the fact that the injury was done while the driver, for a purpose of his own, was deviating from the ordinary route. Upon the question suggested by these facts, the authorities cannot be reconciled. They are collected in an exhaustive note to Ritchie v. Waller, 27 L.R.A. 161, 63 Conn. 155, 28 A. 29, 38 Am.St.Rep. 361, and in an earlier discussion of the same subject in the note to Ware v. Canal Co., 35 Am.Dec. 192, 15 La. 169. In view of the numerous and elaborate opinions dealing with the subject of the master's liability under such circumstances, which are to be found in both the English and the American reports, it would be superfluous for me to marshal the arguments that have been put forth on one side and the other, and to repeat the reasons that commend themselves to me as the weightier. Reference to these arguments has already been made in the notes just referred to, and further consideration of the subject may also be found in 20 Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 163, and in the various text-books upon torts, and upon the relation of master and servant.

There is no serious dispute about the general rules that govern a master's liability. They are well expressed in the following quotation from the note in 35 Am. Dec.:

Page 192. 'The master is liable for the wrongful and negligent acts of his servant, performed while engaged in the pursuit of the master's business, within the scope of his employment, or which, from all the circumstances, may be reasonably, fairly, or necessarily included, or by implication embraced, within the objects of the business the execution of which has been confided to the servant's charge. O'Connell v. Strong, Dudley's Law (S.C.) 265; Andrus v. Howard, 36 Vt. 248, 84 Am.Dec. 680; Luttrell v. Hazen, 3 Sneed, 20; Patten v. Rea, 2 C.B. (N.S.) 606; Jones v Glass, 13 N.C. 305; Priester v. Augley, 5 Rich.Law (S.C.) 44; Wanstall v. Pooley, 6 Cl. & Fin. 910, note; Gass v. Coblens, 43 Mo. 377; Shaw v. Reed, 9 Watts & S. 72; Smith v. Webster, 23 Mich. 298; Allison v. Western N.C.R.R., 64 N.C. 382; Chicago, St. Paul & F.R.R. v. McCarthy, 20 Ill. 385, 71 Am.Dec. 285; Stone v. Cheshire R.R., 19 N.H. 427, 51 Am.Dec. 192; Carman v. S. & I.R.R., 4 Ohio St. 399; Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery, 98 Mass. 577, 96 Am.Dec. 685; Byram v. McGuire, 3 Head (Tenn.) 530; Barlow v. Emmert, 10 Kan. 358; Tuel v. Watson...