Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1913-05-30

holiday. he decorated steam mach /
inc, and with party of friends drove
it about the town without event, re-
turning it to his fathers premises. |
He went away for a time and in the |
meantime the daughter returned and
left the electric on the street in front |
of the store. Buck directed an en-
ployee to take it in and soon after
left the store. Soon after the son
returned and seeing the machine
standing there invited a young lady
friend to ride home in it. He took
her home by the nearest route and
on the way back Reynolds hores be-
came frightened at the machine and
an accident and injury 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 employ
ment or with his fathers business.
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 a daughter
has general use of machine and US
ing it solely for her own purposes,
negGgently causes an injury she
alone is liable, the parent having no
legal responsibility.
There is a general rule of law that
father who allows a child to go
about with any dangerous agency is
liable for resulting injury. When
automobiles were novelty persons
injured by machines driven by child
rem 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, generally, refused to
incline to this view.
"The automobile is not danger
Gus DEVICE" says one Judge. 1t is
an ordinary vehicle of pleasure and
business. 1t is no more dangerous
than a team of horses and carriage;
or gun, or sailboat, or motor
launch"
But if the child is in any way serv-
ing the parent in operating the
machine the parent is liable as for
the acts of servant while engaged
upon the masters business. The
courts are generally very ready to
hold parent liable where possible,
and if there is any evidence that the
child acted upon the parents sugges.
ton, request or orders, was perform
ing any errand or service for the
parent, the parent will be held liable
A Massachusetts case provides ar
excellent example of the fathers
! liability. ''In this CASE" said the
judge in rendering the opinion that
held the father liable, ga father had
bought an automobile for the gener.
al use of his family. 1t was regis.
tered in his name, but the only mem.
Der of his family licensed to operate
it was his minor son, and the mach.
inc never was operated except by
him. The defendant testified in sub.
stance that his wife had the permits.
sion to use the automobile whenever
she desired, without making any
special request for it and that he ex.
pected his son to mind his mother if
she asked him to take her out with
the car. The plaintiff was injured
by collision with it under the cir
cumstances which warranted find
ing 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 then acting in ac-
cordance 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 employed
a chauffeur outside the family at a
stated compensation it could not be
tontended seriously that taking the
wife out for an afternoon call was