Prewitt v. Walker, 40522
| Decision Date | 07 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 40522,40522 |
| Citation | 97 So.2d 514,231 Miss. 860 |
| Parties | Mrs. Dois PREWITT v. Bobby Gene WALKER et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Charles C. Jacobs, Jr., Cleveland, Carlton & Henderson, Sumner, John L. Hatcher, Cleveland, for appellant.
Breland & Whitten, Summer, for appellees.
This suit was brought in the Circuit Court of Tallahatchie County by Mrs. Dois Prewitt against Bobby Gene Walker, a minor, and also against his father and mother for the recovery of damages for serious and permanent personal injuries sustained by Mrs. Prewitt when an automobile driven by Bobby Gene Walker on a side street in the City of Cleveland, Mississippi, ran past a stop sign at a high rate of speed, without stopping or slowing down, and struck broadside an automobile in which Mrs. Prewitt was riding with her husband and two children, causing it to be practically demolished.
The declaration is in two counts. The first count charges that Bobby Gene Walker was a reckless and dangerous driver and had a reputation for so being, and that these facts were known to his parents, or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable care. The second count charges that Bobby Gene Walker was a minor, 16 years of age, at the time of the collision and that he obtained a driver's license by virtue of a fraudulent statement in his application therefor by stating that he was born on October 21, 1932, when as a matter of fact he was born on October 21, 1938, and as a result of his fraudulent representation as to his age a driver's license was issued to him on July 6, 1954. The collision occurred on August 18, 1955, at a time when the minor defendant was under the age of 17 years. The declaration charges that the driver's license was obtained by fraud and that the parents of the minor defendant knew that it was obtained by a fraudulent representation as to his age and that they did not sign the application for a driver's license as required by Section 8096, Code of 1942, but permitted him to drive upon the roads and highways of the State of Mississippi with knowledge of the fact that he was not lawfully licensed under the laws of this State, all in violation of Section 8112, Code of 1942.
The proof in the case did not show that the minor was a reckless or incompetent driver, nor did it show that he had the reputation of so being. The only proof in this respect was that of his mother who testified without dispute that he had a good reputation for being a careful and competent driver. The first count of the declaration, being supported by no proof, was virtually abandoned.
On the night in question Mrs. Walker had gone to a hospital in Cleveland to visit a friend and she left her car parked in front of the hospital with the key in the switch. Later her husband and son came to the hospital and came to the room where she was visiting and in a few minutes the son left the room and, without the knowledge or consent of either his father or mother, went and got in the car and proceeded to drive on the streets of the City of Cleveland and while he was thus engaged the accident in question occurred. The minor did not testify but his mother was called as an adverse witness and she said that she had no knowledge whatever as to when he got his driver's license.
The highway patrolman who examined the minor defendant and took his application for the driver's license identified the application and testified that the minor defendant told him that he was born on October 21, 1932, and the application so shows. It also shows that the minor defendant on that occasion was operating an automobile registered in the name of his father and also that the minor defendant exhibited the driver's license of his father, the number of which was set down on the application, but the patrolman did not remember whether the father was present.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court sustained a motion made by the father and mother to exclude the evidence as to them and to peremptorily instruct the jury to render a verdict in their favor and he granted a peremptory instruction to the plaintiff and against the minor defendant on the issue of liability and submitted to the jury the determination of the amount of damages which they would award. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, which, on motion of the plaintiff for a new trial, was by the lower court set aside as being grossly inadequate and a new trial was ordered against the minor as to the amount of damages only. From which action as to the father and mother, Mrs. Prewitt appeals.
Section 8096, Code of 1942, provides:
'(b) Any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardy Bros. Body Shop v. State Farm
...beyond that which is clearly indicated by the express terms or by the necessary implication from the language used. Prewitt v. Walker, 231 Miss. 860, 97 So.2d 514 (1957). Guided by these principles of statutory construction, this court refuses to expand the language and thrust of § 83-11-50......
-
Warren v. Glascoe, 2001-CA-01368-COA.
...Mississippi courts have consistently held that the family purpose doctrine does not apply in Mississippi. Prewitt v. Walker, 231 Miss. 860, 864, 97 So.2d 514, 516 (1957). Vicarious liability for family members is based upon the following statute. [A]ny negligence or wilful misconduct of a m......
-
Sedlacek v. Ahrens
...similar facts where other courts have held the parent is not liable. Fitiles v. Umlah, 322 Mass. 325, 77 N.E.2d 212; Prewitt v. Walker, 231 Miss. 860, 97 So.2d 514; Marron v. Helmecke, 100 Colo. 364, 67 P.2d 1034. All are distinguishable. Fitiles and Marron involved an agency relationship o......
-
Akers v. Johnson's Estate
...has stated it to be. The statutes enacted, being in derogation of the common law, must be strictly construed. Prewitt v. Walker, 231 Miss. 860, 97 So.2d 514 (1957) and other citations too numerous to Turning then to the sentence in question, we note that the first two words thereof,' 'All i......