Case ID: misc_83/html/0139-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Guy, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin Roberts, Respondent, v. Joseph Schanz, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    December, 1913.)
    Automobiles — owner not liable for negligence of one driving, machine for his or her own purposes.
    The owner of an automobile is not liable for the negligence of one who driving the machine for his or her own purposes runs down and injures another.
    
      Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, rendered in favor of the plaintiff.
    Samuel Greason, Jr., for appellant. "
    Edward A. Scott, for respondent.
   Guy, J.

This action was brought to recover for a personal injury sustained by plaintiff from being run down by defendant’s automobile while, it is alleged, it was being driven at an excessive speed by defendant’s niece, with defendant’s “ knowledge, consent and approval. ’’

The answer admits the operation of the automobile by defendant’s niece, but denies that it was being operated by defendant or by any one in his employ or under his control.

Plaintiff’s evidence as to the happening of the accident was not sufficient to charge the driver of the machine with negligence, even if defendant were responsible therefor. The evidence, however, is that the driver, a niece of the defendant, residing in his household, was not operating the machine for the general purposes, or any special purpose, of the defendant, but for her own purposes. Defendant could not, therefore, be held liable for her negligence, even had such negligence been proven. Maher v. Benedict, 123 App. Div. 579, 580; Cunningham v. Castle, 127 id. 580, 586-588; Douglass v. Hewson, 142 id. 166, 168; Doran v. Thomsen, 76 N. J. L. 754.

Seabury and Bijur, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.