Warren v. Norguard

• Decision Date: 01 August 1918
• Docket Number: 14769.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: WARREN v. NORGUARD et ux.

174 P. 7

103 Wash. 284

WARREN v. NORGUARD et ux.

No. 14769.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 1, 1918

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith Judge.

Action by W. J. Warren against Martin Norguard and wife. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendants.

John W Arctander, of Seattle, for appellants.

Geo. F Hannan and C. A. Brinkley, both of Seattle, for respondent.

FULLERTON, J.

The respondent, Warren, while upon one of the streets of the city of Seattle, was injured by being struck by an automobile owned by the appellants Norguard, but which at the time was driven by one of their sons, with whom another son was riding. This action is to recover for the injuries suffered. It was tried to the court sitting without a jury. The court found, among others, the following facts:

'(2) That on, to wit, the 3d day of May, 1916, the children of said defendants, Omar Norguard and Martin Norguard, Jr., acting as the agents and servants of said defendants, were driving an automobile belonging to said defendants west on Olive street, in the city of Seattle, King county, Washington. * * *

'(5) That the automobile which struck the plaintiff * * * was purchased by the defendants Martin Norguard and Alma J. Norguard, both for business purposes and for use of themselves and their children for pleasure purposes, and at the time of the injury to plaintiff it was being driven by said children, with the consent and permission of said defendants, for the purpose for which it was purchased and used.'

On the findings the court held the appellants liable for the injury and entered a judgment against them in the sum of $578. The facts, as we gather them from the record, are in substance these:

The appellants were engaged in the business of cleaning and pressing clothes, and purchased the automobile in question for both business and pleasure purposes. Their family consisted of three sons, one of whom was a young man 25 years of age and the other two were minors. The minor sons were a part of the appellants' family and lived at the family residence. The elder son was engaged in his own pursuits, not having lived at the family home for more than six years. At the time of the accident he was in service on a steamer engaged in the coastwise trade, and had his clothes and all of his paraphernalia on board the boat, which was then his home in so far as he had a home. On the day of the accident he had just returned from a cruise, and, going to the family home, found the family absent. The car was in the garage, and he took it and drove it for a while around the streets, when, meeting one of his brothers, he took him in the car and started to drive back to the family residence. On the way back he ran against the respondent with the car causing the injury which gave rise to this action. It was shown that this son had registered under the conscription Act, giving his parents' home as his place of residence, and had directed that his mail pertaining thereto be sent to that address; that he sometimes, when in port, stayed at the home overnight, and at other times visited there, perhaps eating a meal in the house, but as often slept either aboard the boat or at some hotel in the city. No part of his earnings were...