Wilcox v. Herbst
Decision Date | 10 April 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 2717,2717 |
Citation | 75 Wyo. 289,295 P.2d 755 |
Parties | Roy L. WILCOX, and Roy L. Wilcox as the next friend of John Wilcox and Gary Wilcox, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Frank J. HERBST, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Smith & Nicholas and William J. Nicholas, Lander, for appellant.
No appearance for plaintiffs and respondents.
John Wilcox, sixteen, accompanied by his fourteen-year-old brother, was driving the car of his father, Roy L. Wilcox, on a Fremont County road after dark on the night of July 6, 1953, when the car struck the horse of defendant Frank J. Herbst, damaging the automobile, injuring the driver, his brother the passenger, and the horse. The father sued Herbst (a) for damage to the car and (b) as next friend for the damages caused by the injuries to each of the sons. Herbst cross-petitioned for the injury to the animal. The trial court found that the negligence of John Wilcox and Frank J. Herbst proximately caused the accident, but as a matter of law that the negligence of the son-driver could not be imputed to the father, and therefore entered judgment for the father, Roy L. Wilcox, against defendant Frank J. Herbst for the sum of $845 and costs. (No judgment was entered on the claim of John Wilcox or Gary Wilcox, plaintiffs, or the counterclaim of Frank J. Herbst, defendant; but in view of the findings of negligence, it was apparently intended that the judgment be considered to be against the claims of each of these parties.)
From this judgment, defendant has appealed, raising three contentions:
(1) That the negligence on the part of the eldest son, driver of the motor vehicle, should bar the damages occasioned to the owner, the driver's father.
(2) That the proof of the damages was insufficient to sustain the judgment.
(3) That a person leading horses on a highway has no duty to display a warning light and failure to do so is not negligence.
We shall discuss the points raised by defendant in the order listed.
Defendant seriously urges that the negligence of a son-driver is imputable to a father-owner. His arguments are ingenious and would be convincing, did he but cite authority for his views. He points out that if the judgment is allowed to stand the results will be 'a distortion of principles and an absurd ramification of good law.' He says that:
He applies this same principle to business and to various other situations.
Perhaps there are answers to this point of view which might have been highlighted had plaintiff chosen to appear with counsel and present either brief or oral argument in this court. It is unnecessary to speculate on that subject since defendant cites no law as basis for his position. Instead, we shall discuss generally the state and current trend of the law relating to a bailee's contributory negligence as a defense to a bailor's action. We shall also consider two ramifications of this subject, the imputation of the negligence of a spouse-driver to a spouse-owner, and the imputation of the negligence of a minor-driver to a parent-owner. It will be noted that there are numerous cases and considerable discussion on the general subject but little precedent dealing with facts identical to the situation at hand.
The basic rule on the subject is given in 6 Am.Jur., Bailments § 310, which states the former rule that:
'* * * the bailee's negligence may be imputed to the bailor so as to defeat his recovery, where it contributed to the injury or loss of the bailed property for which the action is brought.'
but goes on to say:
* * *
To the same effect is another subject in this encyclopedia, 5 Am.Jur., Automobiles § 493:
'In accord with the modern rule that a bailee's contributory negligence is not imputable to the bailor in the latter's action for an injury to, or destruction of, the subject of bailment, the contributory negligence of one to whom an automobile is loaned by its owner and who is using it for his own pleasure or benefit is not imputable to the owner so as to prevent the latter's holding another liable for negligently injuring the car, unless the owner retains some direction or control over the action of the bailee. * * *'
citing Annot., 6 A.L.R. 316 with a supplement in Annot., 30 A.L.R. 1248, both of which clearly set forth the change in the weight of authority on this question.
Cases on the general subject are found digested in Volume 34 of the Fifth Decenial Digest (1936 to 1946), Negligence, k90, among which are the following: Gagle v. Heath, 114 Ind.App. 566, 53 N.E.2d 547 ( ); Weitkam v. Johnston, La.App., 5 So.2d 582; La.App., 6 So.2d 54 ( ); Tibbetts v. Harbach, 135 Me. 397, 198 A. 610 ( ); Leveillee v. Wright, 300 Mass. 382, 15 N.E.2d 247 ( ); Darian v. McGrath, 215 Minn. 389, 10 N.W.2d 403 ( ); Christensen v. Hennepin Transp. Co., 215 Minn. 394, 10 N.W.2d 406, 147 A.L.R. 945 (holding negligence of bailee not imputable to bailor; Lubell v. Annunziata, Sup.App.T., 9 N.Y.S.2d 100 ( ); Strouse v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 76 Ohio App. 327, 64 N.E.2d 257 ( ); Cranston v. Railway Express Agency, 237 Wis. 479, 297 N.W. 418 ( ).
Probably the strongest general statement on the subject is found in 4 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice (1946) § 2865:
'The modern rule, supported by the weight of authority, is that the negligence of a bailee in the use of the subject of the bailment such as an automobile contributing to its injury cannot be imputed to the bailor, so as to preclude recovery by the latter for the negligence of a third person also constituting a proximate cause of the injury, unless such bailor and bailee also sustain the relation of employer and employee, or of principal and agent, or a partnership, or family relation exists, and not then unless the bailee is acting within the scope of his employment.'
This text among other cases cites Gagle v. Heath, supra, in which the daughter was driving the car. Unfortunately, the Indiana court does not discuss the particular relationship of parent and child or the underlying reasoning on which the decision is based but summarily disposes of the situation, 53 N.E.2d at page 548, by quoting Lee v. Layton, 95 Ind.App. 663, 167 N.E. 540, 541:
"* * * the weight of authority in the later cases is decidedly in favor of the rule that the contributory negligence of the bailee is not imputable to the bailor so as to preclude his recovery of damages from a third person for negligently injuring the bailor's property. * * *"
We are well aware of the equities favoring defendant and heretofore mentioned in an article entitled 'Imputed Contributory Negligence in Automobile Bailments,' 82 University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1933-34), pp. 213-229. Mr. Reno in that article discusses the majority and minority views, the effect of the Family Purpose Doctrine on holdings in these cases, the social necessity of establishing vicarious liability of the bailor by legislation, and indicates the difficulty of courts in attempting to undertake such legislation as their own responsibility.
In Texas, a state which is one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Downs v. State
...rule in civil cases in Wyoming. Shafsky, supra, cites only Hammer. Horn v. State, supra, gives another civil case Wilcox v. Herbst, 75 Wyo. 289, 295 P.2d 755, 756 (1956) as its Cullin v. State, supra, cites Bentley v. State, 502 P.2d 203, 208 (Wyo.1972) which says simply that the "appellate......
-
Spreader Specialists, Inc. v. Monroc, Inc.
...Inc. v. Scalzo, 16 Wash.App. 918, 561 P.2d 206 (1977); Krueger v. Steffen, 30 Wis.2d 445, 141 N.W.2d 200 (1966); Wilcox v. Herbst, 75 Wyo. 289, 295 P.2d 755 (1956).4 See, e.g., Kohn v. Arp, 236 Iowa 31, 17 N.W.2d 824 (1945) (cost of repairs may not exceed value of vehicle before accident). ......
-
Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves
...property, Sagebrush Development, Inc. v. Moehrke, Wyo., 604 P.2d 198 (1979), that in itself does not make it competent, Wilcox v. Herbst, 75 Wyo. 289, 295 P.2d 755 (1956); Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Fister, Ky.App., 373 S.W.2d 720 (1963). This is consistent with the rule genera......
-
Bailey v. Jeffries-Eaves, Inc.
...the negligence of the bailee will not be imputed to the bailor. Glenn v. Gibbons & Reed Co., 1 Utah 2d 308, 265 P.2d 1013; Wilcox v. Herbst, 75 Wyo. 289, 295 P.2d 755. Counter-defendant Allen did not carry the burden of showing that Freese's relationship to Dove was more than that of bailor......