Stewart v. Lafoe

• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: SETTLE, J.
• Citation: Stewart v. Lafoe, 194 Ky. 655, 240 S.W. 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1922)
• Decision Date: 02 May 1922
• Parties: STEWART v. LAFOE.

240 S.W. 57

194 Ky. 655

STEWART v. LAFOE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 2, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County.

Action by A. E. Stewart against J. W. Lafoe. From a judgment dismissing the action, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R. M Stuart, of Owensboro, for appellant.

E. B Anderson and Aud & Higdon, all of Owensboro, for appellee.

SETTLE J.

The appellant, A. E. Stewart, brought this action in the court below against the appellee J. W. Lafoe, seeking the recovery of $765, damages of the latter for injuries resulting to his automobile from its collision with an automobile owned by the appellee, caused, as alleged, by the negligence of one Dorsey Willingham, a chauffeur in his employ by whom it was at the time being operated. The appellee filed a general demurrer to the petition, which the circuit court sustained. Excepting to this ruling, the appellant filed an amended petition. The appellee then insisted upon his demurrer to the petition as amended, which was again sustained; and, upon the appellants declining to plead further, the court entered judgment dismissing the action and awarding appellee recovery of his costs against the appellant. From that judgment the latter was granted, and is now prosecuting this appeal.

While the petition alleges that the collision of the automobiles was caused by the negligence of the chauffeur in running the appellee's car at an unusually rapid and unsafe rate of speed, and that he had previously been employed as a chauffeur by appellee, neither therein nor in the amended petition is it alleged that at the time of the accident the chauffeur was in charge of or operating the car by the authority or with the knowledge of appellee or within the scope of his employment by the latter as chauffeur or otherwise. It is, however, alleged in the petition, and more specifically charged in the amended petition, that at the time of employing Willingham as chauffeur appellee knew that he was an unlicensed chauffeur, less than 18 years of age that he was small and physically unable to control or operate an automobile, and unskilled and negligent in operating such a machine; that the placing of so dangerous an agency in his hands would endanger the lives of other persons using the highways; and that with knowledge of these facts appellee did unlawfully and negligently employ Willingham as chauffeur and place him in such position as gave him access to the automobile and to the use thereof, which conduct of the...