Sedlacek v. Ahrens
| Decision Date | 23 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 12722,12722 |
| Citation | 530 P.2d 424,165 Mont. 479 |
| Parties | Vernon D. SEDLACEK, Cross-Appellant, and Signe M. Sedlacek, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Edward A. AHRENS et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Hutton, Sheehy & Cromly, Billings, John C. Sheehy, argued, Billings, for defendants and appellants.
Morrison, Ettien & Barron, Havre, J. Chan Ettien, argued, Havre, for respondent.
Following an automobile-motor bike accident, the automobile passenger sued the minor motorcyclist and his parents for her personal injuries and the automobile driver sued in a separate action for damages to his car. Two judgments were entered in the district court of McCone county following a consolidated nonjury trial: (1) Judgment for the passenger against all defendants. (2) Judgment against the driver in favor of all defendants. The parents of the minor motorcyclist appeal from the first judgment and the driver cross appeals from the second judgment.
On July 28, 1966, at about 4:00 p.m. Clayton Ahrens, a 12 year old, was driving a Honda motor bike south on Montana Route 12 in McCone County. Vernon Sedlacek was driving a Cadillac, in which his wife Signe was a passenger, in the same direction behind the motor bike.
As the Cadillac approached a point on the highway about 600 feet before reaching the accident scene, the Cadillac slowed from about 70 miles per hour to about 60 miles per hour and then picked up speed as it prepared to pass the motor bike.
Clayton Ahrens did not signal his intent to turn left and Vernon Sedlacek did not sound his horn until he was in the act of passing.
As Clayton Ahrens was making his left turn, Vernon Sedlacek applied the brakes and pulled left on to the shoulder of the highway causing the Cadillac to roll. It came to rest on its top with the front end on the pavement and the rear end half in the left borrow pit. It appeared from marks on the Cadillac that the motor bike had collided with the right rear fender of the car.
The motor bike was owned by Clayton Ahrens' father who had purchased it ten days before the accident. Clayton was using it on Montana Route 12 without the knowledge of his parents, Edward and Dorothy Ahrens, and against their instructions that he not go out upon the highway when using the motor bike.
Signe Sedlacek received personal injuries in the accident. The Cadillac was extensively damaged. Clayton Ahrens received only superficial injuries and Vernon Sedlacek was not injured.
Signe Sedlacek filed a personal injury action against Clayton Ahrens and his parents. Vernon Sedlacek filed an action to recover damages to his Cadillac. Both actions were filed in the district court of McCone County and consolidated for trial.
Judge L. C. Gulbrandson tried the case without a jury. He entered findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) that Clayton Ahrens was negligent in making a left turn off the highway without signaling; (2) Vernon Sedlacek was contributorily negligent in driving at a speed greater than was reasonable under the existing conditions and in filing to sound his horn prior to passing; (3) that Edward Ahrens was liable for the injuries suffered by Signe Sedlacek by providing a motor vehicle to Clayton Ahrens who was a person forbidden by statute to operate a motor vehicle because of his age; and, (4) that Signe Sedlacek suffered $4,800 damages by reason of her injuries.
Judgment was entered in favor of Signe Sedlacek against Clayton Ahrens and his parents for $4,800, plus costs. A separate judgment was entered in favor of all defendants against Vernon Sedlacek denying damages to the Cadillac.
Edward and Dorothy Ahrens, Clayton's parents, appeal from Signe Sedlacek's $4,800 judgment against them; Clayton Ahrens does not appeal from this judgment. Vernon Sedlacek crossappeals from the judgment denying him recovery for damages to the Cadillac.
Clayton's parents contend that neither is liable for the injuries to Signe Sedlacek under the trial court's findings and conclusions.
At the outset, we note there are no findings nor conclusions of the district court that support any liability on the part of Dorothy Ahrens. The district court so provided in the concluding paragraph of its findings:
'WHEREFORE, let Judgment be entered in favor of the plaintiff, Signe Sedlacek, against the defendants, Clayton E. Ahrens and Edward A. Ahrens, in the sum of $4800 and her costs.'
The judgment was inadvertently entered against all defendants. The name of Dorothy Ahrens is ordered stricken from the judgment to conform to the findings and conclusions.
Two statutes of Montana's Motor Vehicle Code are relevant to a discussion of Edward Ahrens' liability:
Section 31-156, R.C.M. 1947, provides:
'(1) No person shall cause or knowingly permit his child or ward under the age of eighteen (18) years to drive a motor vehicle upon any highway when such minor is not authorized hereunder or in violation of any provisions of this act.'
Section 31-127, R.C.M. 1947, provided at the time of the accident:
'The board shall not issue any license hereunder:
'(1) To any person, as an operator, who is under the age of sixteen (16) years, with these exceptions:
'(a) * * *
'(b) the board may issue a restricted license as hereinafter provided to any person who is at least thirteen (13) years of age * * *.'
Edward Ahrens contends that he is not liable because (1) he did not knowingly permit his son Clayton to drive the motor bike upon the highway in violation of section 31-156, and (2) the licensing statute does not forbid a minor below licensing age to drive a motor bike on private property.
Edward's contentions miss the point. The basis of his liability is entrustment of the motor bike to a person not qualified to operate it on a public highway. Liability is not predicated on knowingly permitting Clayton to drive the motor bike on the highway in violation of section 31-156. The relevant basis of liability was expressed in this language by the district court:
'The defendant, Edward Ahrens, by providing a motor vehicle to Clayton Ahrens who was a person forbidden by statute to operate a motor vehicle because of his age, is liable for injuries caused to the plaintiff, Signe Sedlacek, by the negligent operation of the motor bike by Clayton Ahrens.'
Licensing statutes such as section 31-127, R.C.M. 1947, prohibiting the issuance of an operator's license to a minor below a prescribed age are enacted under a state's police powers in the interests of public safety. One of the objects of such statutes is to protect users of the highways from inexperiencedand immature drivers. Charbonneau v. MacRury, 84 N.H. 501, 153 A. 457, 73 A.L.R. 1266. Such statutes are legislative declarations that minors under licensing age are incompetent drivers and do not possess sufficient care and judgment to operate motor vehicles on the public highways without endangering the lives and limbs of others. Schultz v. Morrison, 91 Misc.Rep. 248 154 N.Y.S. 257, aff'd, 172 App.Div. 940,156 N.Y.S. 1144; 7 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 107.
The fact that such a minor deviates from the consent given and exceeds its limitations will not relieve the provider from liability. 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 575; Shrout v. Rinker, 148 Kan. 820, 84 P.2d 974; Strout v. Polakewich, 139 Me. 134, 27 A.2d 911. Liability is not bottomed on agency or imputed negligence where the scope of consent or authority may play a significant role. Respondeat superior and the family purpose doctrine are alien considerations. The act of the provider himself is the basis of liability-placing an unlicensable minor in possession of an instrumentality which in his immature and incompetent hands becomes dangerous to other motorists the licensing statute is designed to protect.
Counsel for defendants have cited three cases under 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dumont v. Wickens Bros. Const. Co.
...and denied benefits to claimant. That decision comes to this Court with the presumption that it is correct. Sedlacek v. Ahrens (1974), 165 Mont. 479, 485, 530 P.2d 424, 427; Montana Farm Service Co. v. Marquart (1978), Mont., 578 P.2d 315, 316, 35 St.Rep. 1066, The scope of review of a deci......
-
State v. Skurdal
...recognized the power of the State to regulate licensing of drivers in the interests of public safety." Sedlacek v. Ahrens (1974), 165 Mont. 479, 483, 530 P.2d 424, 426. Licensing is the best means to determine that drivers meet a minimal standard of competence. It is a justifiable, reasonab......
-
Petition of Montana Power Co. for Increased Rates and Charges in Gas and Elec. Services
...in the evidence, the findings of the trial court are presumed to be correct if supported by substantial evidence.' Sedlacek v. Ahrens (1974), 165 Mont. 479, 485, 530 P.2d 424. "We have also held that the findings of the trial court, in a nonjury trial, will not be reversed on appeal, unless......
-
State v. Deitchler
...previously recognized the power of the state to regulate licensing of drivers in the interests of public safety. Sedlacek v. Ahrens (1974), 165 Mont. 479, 483, 530 P.2d 424, 426. We have also recognized that the state's exercise of police power in setting speed limits is in the best interes......