River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-08-14

at the machine and an accident and
injzry resulted.
This court held that even If the
son was negligent the father could
not be held responsible. 1t took
the view that the son was using the
machine solely for his own pleasure
and convenience and that it was IN
no sense connected with his en-
ployment or with his fathers bust
ness. The son was not acting for
his father and so the father was not
liable.
Daughters, of course, are In the
same category as sons. Many cases
have decided that where daughter
has general use of a machine and,
using it solely for her own pur-
poses, negligently causes an injury
she alone is liable, the parent hav-
ing no legal responsibility.
There is a general rule of law that
a father who allows child to go
about with any dangerous agency
is liable for resulting injury. When
automobiles were novelty persons
injured by machines driven by chill
dren sought to fasten liability on
the parent by claiming that they
were a dangerous article and a
parent who allowed a child to be
abroad with one should take the
consequences. But the courts, gen.
orally, refused to incline to this
view.
1.-The automobile is not a danger
GUS Device" says one judge. 1t
is an ordinary vehicle of pleasure
and business. 1t is no more dan
gerous than a team of horses and
a carriage; or gun, or sailboat.
or motor launch"
But if the child is in any way
serving the parent in operating the
machine the parent is liable as for
the acts of a servant while engaged
upon the masters business. The
courts are generally very ready to
hold a parent liable where possible,
and if there is any evidence that
the child acted upon the parents
suggestion, request or orders, was
performing any errand or service
for the parent, the parent will be
held liable.
A Massachusetts case provides
an excellent example of the fathers
liability: In this case" said the
Judge in rendering the opinion that
held the father liable, "a father had
bought an automobile for the gen
eral use of his family. 1t was reg
istered in his name, but the only
member of his family licensed to
operate il was his minor son, and
the machine never was operated ex-
cept by him. The defendant test
flied in substance that his wife had
his permission to use the auto
mobile whenever she desired, with
out making any special request for
it, and that he expected his son to
mind his mother if she as ked him
to take her out with the car. The
plaintiff was injured by a collision
with it under circumstances which
warranted a finding that the son
was negligent on an afternoon when
he was driving the car with his
mother at her request. These facts
warranted the inference that the
son was acting in accordance with
general instructions expressly or
implicitly given by his father.
The boy was not running it for
any purpose of his own, but for the
convenience of his mother and by
her express direction, for whose
use, in common with the rest of the
family, it had been purchased by
his father. If the father had en-
ployed a chauffeur outside the
family at a stated compensation it
could not be contended seriously
that taking the wife out for af
afternoon call was not the business
for which his had been employed.
If, instead of hiring stranger, the
father chose to have the same work
| performed by his minor son, TO
whose time and services he was
entitled as matter OF law, it could
DE ruled as matter of law that q
jury might not and the business to
be that of the father. This is not a
case of mere permissive use Of the
fathers vehicle by the son for has
o vn pleasure. Although the father
| bad no knowledge of the particular
| journey which was taken on the
Oh casion of tbs accident, his know
| ledge that on prior ocessions the
wife lad used the car, and his ties.
timony OF the purpose for which il
was bought, and that it was not
customary when the wife was going
on errands with the automobile to
ask his permission, Msfa enough tC