Thomas v. Armitage

• Citation: 126 N.W. 735,111 Minn. 238
• Decision Date: 10 June 1910
• Docket Number: 16,669 - (161)
• Parties: FRED W. THOMAS v. THOMAS L. ARMITAGE
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

126 N.W. 735

111 Minn. 238

FRED W. THOMAS v. THOMAS L. ARMITAGE

Nos. 16,669 - (161)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 10, 1910

Action in the district court for Mille Lacs county to recover $375 damages for injuries to plaintiff's team and two buggies caused by a collision with an automobile. The amended answer alleged that the accident was caused by the negligence of plaintiff's servant in seeking to deprive defendant's servant of his right of way, by whipping up and increasing the speed of plaintiff's team, for the purpose of passing in front of the automobile and thereby directly, by the gross carelessness of plaintiff's servant, causing the collision complained of. For a counterclaim defendant alleged that his automobile was damaged in the sum of $100; that, in order to secure an amicable settlement, defendant had tendered to plaintiff and plaintiff had accepted the sum of $45 which had never been returned, and he demanded judgment for $145. The reply admitted that plaintiff's vehicles had been repaired and returned to him after being repaired by defendant. The case was tried before McClenahan, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $100. From the judgment entered thereon, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Negligence of drivers -- charge to jury -- liability of masters.

In this, an action to recover damages for loss of the use of certain vehicles which were damaged as a result of a collision between appellant's automobile and respondent's team and buggy, held:

1. The court correctly charged the jury that appellant was responsible for the conduct of his driver, and that the owner of the vehicles was entitled to recover, if those in charge of the team were in the exercise of due care, and if the driver of the automobile was negligent.

2. The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury upon the question of negligence of both drivers, and the evidence supports the verdict.

Frank T. White, for appellant.

Olin C Myron, for respondent.

OPINION

LEWIS, J.

Appellant's automobile, while driven by his employee, came in contact with a buggy drawn by a team of horses driven by an employee of respondent. The collision occurred in a public street in Princeton, and resulted in damaging the buggy and frightening the team, which broke away, and ran down the street, and damaged another of respondent's vehicles, standing in front of his barn.

1. The court correctly...