The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1910-07-29
RESPONSIBILITY OF
OWNER AND DRIVER
Chauffeur Alone Accountable for
Damages When Not on
Regular Duty.

After a careful review of the leading
eases dealing with the relation of the
owner Of an automobile and his paid
driver. saws Clinton B. Marshall, it will
be seen that the following propositions
have now been definitely established:
First-That the chauffeur is an en-
plove and servant of his employer
while engaged IN and performing bust
ness for which he IS hired and paid.
Second-That he 5 employed to OF
crate and drive his employer auto
mobile only at such times and such
places as designated by his employer
personally or by the employers agent,
either 10y express direction or by impi-
cation.
Third-That any driving by the
chauffeur for his own pleasure or bust
ness at such times or to such places
not authorized expressly or by impli-
cation by the employer does not con-
StItute performance Of his contract of
employment, and an injury caused by
his negligent operation of the car while
50 driving viii not have TO be accounted
for by the employer in damages.
Fourth-That n order to hold the
owner Of an automobile responsible for
an alleged injury caused by another
person driving his machine. the relation
Of owner and chauffeur or master and
servant must be shown TO have existed
at the time.
Fifth-That the borrower of an auto
mobile can not make the person loanlng
il responsible for the former 5 conduct
or acts. for the reason that there Is no
relation Of master and servant in such
case: there is no hiring.
There are probably more decisions on
the relation OF owner and chauffeur and
the owner s liability for his chauffeur $
conduct in driving than there are re-
garding any other legal aspect Of motor
nr. It can readily be seen why this Is
true. There is at all times presump-
ton that any one employed to drive a
car for another. while so doing. is the
servant of his employer and therefore
the burden Of proving otherwise and
rebutting this presumption is on the de-
PENDANT. vet the burden is on the plain
tiff when attempting to hold the owner
liable for an injury caused by the EN-
ploye or chauffeur 10 show that the gen
eral relation Of master and servant eX-
isted. When this is shown to have been
the case, it is presumed to continue I'M
til proven otherwise, ordinarily.
The doctrines Of agency are playing
an important part in everything that
mas to do with the automobile, and our
courts are being frequently called upon
to determine the rights and liabilities
of parties rising ont II the acts and
conducts Of their agents. The vital
question on which their controversy
hinges is "was the party acting as
agent or servant at the time he commit
ted the unlawful act or made or. broke
the contraet2'
That a chauffeur IS such an agent of
his employer that he can bind the latter
for certain current supplies purchased
Is probably settled beyond a doubt. \
dealer or manufacturer has the right to
presume that chauffeur acts for his
principal in making such purchase and
can look to the owner for payment.
For a chauffeur to obtain secret com
mission on the sale Of supplies or parts
10 the detriment Of his employer is
clearly Illegal under both the common
and the statutory law. Il is his duty
10 give 10 his employer every possible
advantage gained from any transaction
connected with his employment.