Robertson v. Aldridge

Decision Date11 April 1923
Docket Number334.
Citation116 S.E. 742,185 N.C. 292
PartiesROBERTSON v. ALDRIDGE ET AL.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; Connor, Judge.

Action by Julian Robertson, by his next friend, A. H. King, against J. N. Aldridge and another. From judgment and order of nonsuit, plaintiff excepted and appeals. Reversed, judgment and order to be set aside, and cause submitted to the jury.

Whether parent in intrusting his automobile to his son, known to be reckless, was negligent and liable for an injury to another held for the jury.

The action is against J. N. Aldridge and his minor son, Johnny Aldridge, and is instituted to recover damages for injuries sustained in a collision of automobiles due to the alleged negligence of defendant Johnny Aldridge in operating a car owned by his father, the codefendant, and with the alleged knowledge and consent and approval of the father.

Defendant Johnny Aldridge denied all allegations of negligence, and defendant J. N. Aldridge likewise denied the allegations of negligence, and denied that said Johnny Aldridge was operating the car with his consent and approval, but averred that the car was being driven at the time in disobedience of his explicit instructions. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendants offering no evidence, on motion there was judgment of nonsuit as to the adult defendant, and thereupon plaintiff suffered a nonsuit as to the minor defendant and excepted and appealed.

Coulter & Cooper, of Burlington, for appellant.

Parker & Long, of Graham, for appellees.

HOKE J.

It appears by reasonable intendment from the admissions of the answers that the defendant Johnny Aldridge is the minor son of J. N. Aldridge, codefendant, living with his father, and the car operated by said minor at the time of the collision was owned by the father and used for the convenience and pleasure of the family. And there was evidence on the part of plaintiff tending to show that plaintiff, on the occasion in question December 24, 1920, was riding in a truck for delivery of laundry, owned by V. H. Lane, and used in his business, and which was being driven at the time by Wilton Lane, son of the owner, and over 19 years of age; that they were on the concrete road going from Graham to Burlington, on the right side of the road, sitting in the seat of their machine and moving at about 15 miles an hour; that there was a dirt road on right, a considerable drop (about a foot) from the concrete, and to right of that a rock wall; that at the time and place of the occurrence, just opposite the home of a Mr. Andrews, there was a horse and buggy, the horse hitched to a post on the side of the road, and the buggy extending back about 4 feet onto the concrete, which at this place was 16 to 18 feet wide; that the truck was going on a down grade and with wheels as near the right side of the concrete as they could be placed, and at a point just opposite the buggy defendant Johnny Aldridge, driving the Ford sedan of his father from Burlington towards Graham, at a rate of more than 25 miles per hour, coming from behind the buggy, ran the car over on plaintiff's side of the road, collided with the truck in which plaintiff was riding, knocked it around against the stone wall to the right, throwing plaintiff out of the truck, breaking plaintiff's arm, and causing other bruises and injuries from which he still suffers, etc.

Among other witnesses for plaintiff, V. H. Lane, owner of the truck and father of Wilton, on the examination in chief and his cross-examination, testified as follows:

"That he was not present at the time of the collision; that, when witness' boy came in and said they had had an accident, they went over there and saw what it was, and went over to get Mr. Aldridge to go over and show it to him, so that there would be no misunderstanding; that when witness went in and saw him he was walking the floor, this way (illustrates), and said, 'That boy will ruin me;' that he said, 'Mr. Lane, you go and have that fixed and be as reasonable as you can, and I will pay it;' that Mr. Aldridge said his brother was coming home, and that he let the boy take the sedan out to wash it or have it washed, and that was the reason it was out; that he said he had stopped letting him use it; that he had had so much trouble with him; that Mr. Aldridge told witness he had stopped letting his boy use the machine, but that on this day he let him take it out to be washed; that he did not say anything about whether he had let him take it to Graham, and witness did not ask him; that Mr. Aldridge lives in Burlington and Burlington has several garages; that Mr. Aldridge lives up there; and that on this occasion his brother was coming, and he was going to let the boy take the machine to be washed."

Upon this, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Allen v. Garibaldi
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 31, 1924
    ... ... automobiles, has been adopted as the law of this jurisdiction ... in several recent ... [123 S.E. 67.] ... decisions. Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292, 116 ... S.E. 742; Tyree v. Tudor, 183 N.C. 340, 111 S.E ... 714, modified in another respect in Williams v ... ...
  • Griffin v. Pancoast, 248
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 2, 1962
    ...903; Hawes v. Haynes, 219 N.C. 535, 14 S.E. 2d 503; Vaughn v. Booker, 217 N.C. 479, 8 S.E.2d 603, 132 A.L.R. 977; Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292, 116 S.E. 742. To impose liability under the doctrine it is essential to establish that the party on whom liability would be imposed actually......
  • McIlroy v. Akers Motor Lines
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1948
    ... ... which occurred some eight hours later, was under the ... circumstances probable (Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 ... N.C. 292, 296, 116 S.E. 742); or was likely to occur, ... (Reich v. Cone, 180 N.C. 267, 104 S.E. 530; ... Hawes v. Haynes, ... ...
  • Grier v. Woodside
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1931
    ... ... employment. Wilson v. Polk, 175 N.C. 490, 95 S.E ... 849; Bilyeu v. Beck, 178 N.C. 481, 100 S.E. 891; ... Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N.C. 292, 116 S.E. 742, ... 743. But with respect to the use of automobiles this ... principle must be considered in connection ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT