Posey v. Krogh
| Decision Date | 20 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | 6300 |
| Citation | 259 N.W. 757,65 N.D. 490 |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
On Rehearing April 9, 1935, Reported at 65 N.D. 490 at 498.
Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County Jansonius, J.
Reversed.
Sullivan Fleck & Sullivan, for appellants.
J A. Coffey, for respondents.
These actions are an outgrowth of the same automobile accident, and by stipulation of the parties were tried together under an agreement to have separate verdicts and separate judgments entered.
Separate verdicts were rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and separate judgments entered. The defendant made a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' case, renewed it at the close of the entire case and made a motion to dismiss -- such motions being denied by the court and the defendant has appealed.
One issue is determinative of both cases. As respondent says:
The plaintiffs were minors and had left their homes to attend a summer conference in Jamestown. After being settled in the city, and while on the streets, they met Lyle Krogh, a brother of the defendant, who was driving his sister's car. With him were two young men. The girls were invited to ride and it is the claim of the plaintiffs that during this trip Lyle Krogh was guilty of such gross negligence that there was a collision with a truck and both girls were severely injured. It is not claimed by respondents that the defendant was present in the car or knew anything about this invitation.
The defendant is a school teacher, and over the age of twenty-one at the time of the accident. When not teaching school she lived in the home of her father, a merchant in Pingree. She was the owner of the car, according to the respondent's contention, and the evidence shows that the car was used by various members of the father's family for their own convenience and for the convenience of the father. The defendant was not acquainted with either of the plaintiffs though she had seen one of them prior to the accident. On the day of the accident the father found it necessary to obtain some supplies for his store and ordered his son Lyle, a minor, to go to Jamestown for the purpose of getting the supplies. The son told the defendant of the premeditated trip, and either that he was going to use her car for that purpose or made request for the use of the car. In any event, the defendant knew that he was going to Jamestown and permitted the use of the car. She knew nothing about this contemplated pleasure trip and there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that the brother knew anything about it until he happened to see the plaintiffs on the street in Jamestown. The brother was not on any business for the defendant. If the brother were the servant of any one or under the control of any one he was the servant of his father and under his father's control at that time.
Respondents ask for an extension of the "family car doctrine." It is their claim that this car was furnished by the defendant for the use of the family as well as of herself, and therefore this doctrine applies.
But the liability of an owner of a car because of the negligence of another is based on his supposed control over the driver at the time of the accident. Davis v. Newsome Auto Tire & Vulcanizing Co. 141 Tenn. 527, 213 S.W. 914; Spelde v. Galtieri, 102 N.J.L. 203, 130 A. 526; Melchionda v. American Locomotive Co. 229 Mass. 202, 118 N.E. 265; Halverson v. Blosser, 101 Kan. 683, 168 P. 863, L.R.A.1918B, 498. Ordinarily, when the owner merely permits another to use the car for the latter's individual purpose, the owner is not liable. Armstrong v. Sellers, 182 Ala. 582, 62 So. 28; Santoro v. Bickford, 229 Mass. 357, 118 N.E. 665. Something more than mere ownership is necessary to establish agency between the lender and the borrower; Phillips v. Gookin, 231 Mass. 250, 120 N.E. 691. Mere borrowing does not establish this relationship; (Brown v. Chevrolet Motor Co. 39 Cal.App. 738, 179 P. 697) it is only when the driver was in charge of the car on the owner's business and under his control that the owner would be liable. Irwin v. Judge, 81 Conn. 492, 71 A. 572. Hence, when the head of the family furnishes a car for the use of the family and permits the driver to use the car for the purpose of the family then it can be said that the driver in charge of the car was engaged in the owner's business, and while using it for family purposes was under the control of the owner, therefore the owner would be liable.
Respondents insist that the "family car doctrine" is applicable and then cite a large number of cases to show the extent of the doctrine, such as: Vannett v. Cole, 41 N.D. 260, 170 N.W. 663; Ulman v. Lindeman, 44 N.D. 36, 176 N.W. 25, 10 A.L.R. 1440; Miller v. Kraft, 57 N.D. 559, 223 N.W. 190; Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277, 146 N.W. 1091, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 970; Daily v. Maxwell, 152 Mo.App. 415, 133 S.W. 351; Stowe v. Morris, 147 Ky. 386, 144 S.W. 52, 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 224; Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 P. 1020, 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 59; King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217, 204 S.W. 296, L.R.A.1918F, 293; Harmon v. Haas, 61 N.D. 772, 241 N. W. 70, 80 A.L.R. 1131, 33 N.C.C.A. 52; Smart v. Bissonnette, 106 Conn. 447, 138 A. 365, 27 N.C.C.A. 525.
In these cases cited the car belonged to the father, the head of the family, and he furnished the car for the use of the family. In such case the general principle is well exemplified. The father, as the head of the family owns the car. He purchases it for the use of the family and authorizes the members of his family to use the car for the purpose. It is a general authorization and while they are so using it they are using the car for the purpose for which he purchased it and intrusted it to their care.
Respondents claim that by extension such doctrine is applicable to the case of a daughter, who, though having attained her majority, still lives with her father, and if she purchases a car which she allows her father to use or the members of his family to use and while purchasing it for her own use primarily she gets it also for "the benefit of this family," such car can be said to be a family car and subject to the doctrine stated. On cross-examination the defendant answered "yes" to the question: "And you were using this money (her salary as a teacher) for the purpose of purchasing this car for the benefit of this family and yourself?" She testified that the members of the family could use it whenever they had any occasion and when she was not using it and it was perfectly agreeable to her that the members of this family "could drive it for the purpose of taking their friends."
In support of this extension of the family car doctrine respondents cite Crouse v. Lubin, 260 Pa. 329, 103 A. 725; De Smet v. Niles, 175 A.D. 822, 161 N.Y.S. 566; Quinn v. Neal, 19 Ga.App. 484, 91 S.E. 786.
The Pennsylvania case was an action where the car was owned by a married daughter and her mother was a member of her family, living with her in the married daughter's home. It was not a case of a child living with the parent in the parent's home but the case of a parent living with the child in the child's home. Hence the family car doctrine was held applicable.
In the Georgia case the daughter was living with her father in his home and as a member of the family. The father owned the car which was driven by the daughter at the time of the accident. Apparently both father and daughter were made defendants. Owing to the fact that the father owned the car and the daughter was a member of his family his responsibility was fixed on the theory of the family car doctrine.
The New York case does not sustain the plaintiffs' contention. "A young man of about 21 or 22 years of age living with his father and mother, owned this car." A brother, forbidden by the owner to take his car out alone had permission to take the mother out in the car any time the mother wanted it. The mother asked the brother to get the car and drive her to the home of a friend, and this without consulting the owner of the car and "gave no special permission for the use of the car." On this point the court says:
"It is very evident that the car was not being used in the business of the defendant, but solely for the purpose and pleasure of the mother and the mere authority given (the brother) to take the car out when his mother wished him to did not render the defendant liable."
Even if we adopt the theory of Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 P. 1020, 50 L.R.A.(N.S.) 59, that "ownership of an automobile establishes prima facie that it was in the possession of the owner at the time of the accident, and that the driver was acting for the owner at the time of the accident, and the burden is on the owner to overcome this presumption by competent evidence" the burden has been met fully -- in fact there can be no question on this score. The driver was acting for his father or for himself -- not for the owner of the car.
But the car involved here was not a car belonging to the father, the head of the family. It is true the defendant, though no longer...
To continue reading
Request your trial