Pinaglia v. Beaulieu
| Decision Date | 27 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 114767,114767 |
| Citation | 28 Conn.Supp. 90,250 A.2d 522 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Mary PINAGLIA et al. v. Joseph BEAULIEU. |
Richard L. Jacobs, New Haven, for plaintiffs.
Cotter, Cotter & Sohon, Bridgeport, for defendant.
The issue presented by this demurrer is whether the negligence of the driver of a family car may be imputed to the owner-occupant. It is the court's considered opinion that the answer to this question is 'No.'
To start with, vicarious liability runs counter to the accepted principle that a man is held responsible only for his own actions and not for those of another. If an individual, himself without fault, is to be held vicariously liable, it must be because it is right as a matter of public policy to shift the economic burden. Whatever the judicial rationalization from time to time, it is the search for the deep pocket which holds the master responsible for the negligence of his servant, the owner for the negligence of the driver of the family car, the lessor of an automobile for the negligence of the lessee. The objective in all of these cases is to give an injured plaintiff an economically meaningful recovery.
When, on the other hand, the issue is contributory negligence, there are no sound public policy considerations which should bar a faultless passenger from recovering from a tort-feasor merely because he owns the car in which he is riding. The trend in such situations is to permit recovery. In a 180-degree change of direction, the Restatement now declares as a general principle that a plaintiff is not barred from recovery by the negligent act or omission of a third person. Restatement (Second), 2 Torts § 485. The only exceptions are the employer-employee situation, some areas of the joint enterprise situation, and the case involving the failure of a parent to control a child. Even these exceptions are being subjected to attack. Prophetically many years ago the erosion and ultimate discard of the doctrine of imputed negligence were predicted. Lessler, 'Imputed Negligence,' 25 Conn. B.J. 30. The movement in that direction continues to this day. In Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, Inc., 274 Minn. 482, 144 N.W.2d 540, the Minnesota Supreme Court refused to impute negligence in the master-servant situation.
It is claimed that in the family car situation a distinction is drawn between those cases where the family car doctrine is based on the general right to control and those,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierson v. Edstrom
...427, 164 N.W.2d 540; Wilson v. G.N. Ry. Co. (So.Dak.) 157 N.W.2d 19; Jasper v. Freitag (No.Dak.) 145 N.W.2d 879; Pinaglia v. Beaulieu, 28 Conn.Sup. 90, 250 A.2d 522; Note, 51 Minn.L.Rev. 377; Note, 42 Wash.L.Rev. 662; Comment, 24 Wash. & Lee L.Rev. 126; Note, 16 DePaul L. Rev. 478; Note, 20......
-
Bartz v. Wheat
...negligence bars recovery by the owner, e.g., Mertz v. Weibe, 180 N.W.2d 664 (N.D.1970) (owner may recover); Pinaglia v. Beaulieu, 28 Conn.Supp. 90, 250 A.2d 522 (1969) (owner may recover); Ustjanauskas v. Guiliano, 26 Conn.Supp. 387, 225 A.2d 202 (1966) (owner may not recover); Russell v. H......
-
Markosky v. Morris
...on the question herein presented, three on demurrer and one following a trial to the court. The memoranda in Pinaglia v. Beaulieu, 28 Conn.Sup. 90, 250 A.2d 522 (1969), and Levy v. Senofonte, 2 Conn.Cir. 650, 204 A.2d 420 (1964), would support the plaintiff's position on the demurrer to the......