Spelde v. Galtieri

• Decision Date: 21 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 45.,45.
• Citation: 130 A. 526
• Parties: SPELDE v. GALTIERI.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

130 A. 526

SPELDE

v. GALTIERI.

No. 45.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 21, 1925.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by John Spelde against Vincent Galtieri. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Alexander M. MacLeod, of Paterson, for appellant.

J. Vincent Barnitt, of Paterson, for respondent.

WHITE, J. This appeal is from a judgment on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff respondent, who, while driving a truck on a public highway, was negligently run into and injured by an automobile owned by the defendant appellant, who, while admitting his ownership, testified at the trial that he had loaned the automobile for a few minutes to a man whose first name was "Lucien," and that the latter was using it for his (the latter's) own and not for defendant's purposes, at the time of the injury.

The liability of the owner for the negligence of the driver is absolutely dependent upon the existence of the relationship of master and servant between them. In the absence of that relationship, the doctrine of respondeat superior, upon which alone the owner's liability rests, is not applicable. 26 Cyc. 1519. "Control" is of the essence of this relationship, and is the underlying principle upon which rests the liability of the owner for the driver's negligence. Cuff v. Newark & N. Y. R. Co., 35 N. J. Law, 17, 10 Am. Rep. 205, and cases there cited in the opinion by Mr. Justice Depue. The relationship exists "whenever the employer retains the right to direct the manner in which the business shall be done, as well as the result to be accomplished, or, in other words, not only what shall be done, but how it shall be done." 26 Cyc. 966; Haines v. Atlantic City R. Co., 65 N. J. Law, 27, 46 A. 595, 50 L. R. A. 862; Loran v. Thomsen, 76 N. J. Law, 754, 71 A. 296, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 335, 131 Am. St. Rep. 677; Courtinard v. Gray Burial Co., 98 N. J. Law, 493, 121 A. 145.

While it is true, as above stated, that the defendant testified that this relationship pf master and servant did not exist between him and the driver of the car at the time of the accident, and that such driver had borrowed the car to use during 10 or 15 minutes for his own purposes, the defendant's statements upon cross-examination not only contradicted this story in a number of quite important particulars, but established other facts which rendered his version of the transaction most improbable.

Among other things, he testified he did not know Lucien except in a very casual way by seeing him loitering around on the corner near defen...