Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1913-05-31
Popular Talks on Law.

THE FAMILY USE OF THE AvroMoslLE

no sense connected with his employ
ment or with his fathers business.
The son was not acting for his faith
er and Sc ae .aller was not liable.
Daughters. Of course. are in the
same category as sons. Many cases
have decided that where q daughter
has neral use Of q machine and,
using 1t solely for her own purposes
negligently causes an injury she
alone is liable. the parent having mol
legal responsibility
There is a general rule Of law that
a father who allows q child to go|
about with any dangerous agency
is liable for resulting injury. When
automobiles were q novelty persons
injured by machines driven by chill
dren sought to fasten liability on the
.,arent by claiming that they were q
dangerous article and parent who
allowed child to be abroad with one
should take the consequences. But
the courts. generally. refused to in
:line to this view.
1.-THE automobile is not q dangerous
device" says one Judge. 1T II an
ordinary vehicle Of pleasure and bus
mess It Is no more dangerous than
team of horses and carriage, or
gun, or sailboat, or q motor
launch"
But il the child Is in any way
serving the parent In operating the
machine the parent ID liable 30 TOR
the acts Of a servant while engag-
ed upon the masters businessl The
courts are generally very ready to
hold a parent liable where possible,
and II there ts any evidence that
the child acted upon the parents
suggestion, request or orders, was
performing any errand or service Tor
the parent, the parent will be held
liable.
A Massachusetts, case provides an
! excellent example Of the fathers
| liability. "In this case" said the
sadering the opinion that held
the father liable, "a father had
bought an automobile for the gener-
al use Of his family. It was regis
lered In his name. but the only
member OF his family licensed to op-
crate 1t was his minor son, and the
machine never was operated except
by him. The defendant testified in
substance that his wife had his per.
| .nissiion to use the automobile when.
,ver she desired, without making any
special request for 1t, and that he
| expected his son to mind his mother
| II she asked him. to take her out
with the car. The plaintiff was in
jured by q collision with 1t under
circumstances which warranted a
1 finding that the son was negligent
on an afternoon when he was driving
/ the car with his mother at her re-
quest. These facts warranted the
inference that the son was then act
ing in accordance with general In
structions expressly or imphedly CIV
on by his father. The boy was not
running 1t for any purpose OF his
own, but for the convenience OF his
mother and by her express direc
ton, for whose use In common with
the rest Of the family. 1t had been
purchased by his father. II the
father had employed chauffeur out
side the family at stated compen
sation 1t could not be contended ser
iously that taking the wife out fol
u an afternoon call was not the bust
7 hess for which he had been employ
ei. II, instead Of hiring a stranger
y the father chose to have the same
work performed by his minor son
4 to whose time and services he was
entitled AZ q matter Of law, II
could be ruled as matter Of law thai
jury might not find the business
: to be that of the father. This II
not case Of mere permissive use o
the fathers vehicle by the son fol
his own pleasure. Although Tho
4 father had no knowledge Of the par
! ticular journey which was taken OF
4 the occasion Of the accident, hi
knowledge that ON prior occasions tn
{. wife had used the car, and his ties
} timony Of the purpose for which I
J was bought, and that 1t was no
r customary when the wife was goinl
, on errands with the automobile t
ask his permission, were enough +
/, support finding that the trip Il
question was authorized by him. Thu
u fact that the son was the only persol
!. in the family who could legally oper
4 ate the car had some tendency II
that direction. The relation of bus
I band and wife is such that when thu
4 former has purchased an AUTOMOBILE
a for family use, q ride by the wife II
Q It with his permission is not a
! matter of law the business OF tn
q wife. but may be found to be tha