River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-08-14
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
The Family Use of
the Automobile
Ry Walter K. Towers, a. g., J. D., OF the
Michigan Bar.

Christian County and possessed OF
a family and an automobile. The
car was kept by the father for the
comfort and pleasure of the entire
family. Son and daughter had the
right to use the car as often AS they
liked. The father knew how to
drive the car but the son generally
managed it. AS me spirit moved
him Robert Stowe, the son, took his
sister riding, and often he took his
mother with him. The machine
was used by the family for the
pleasure OF the family. Robert OPP
Grated the car with his fathers per-
mission and had the authority to
use it when he wanted to, and the
daughter had like right.
Robert Stowe, who was eighteen
years of age, was a deputy in his
fathers office. Arriving at the Of
fee one day and finding nothing to
do he left without seeing his father.
In fact he had not seen him that
morning as he did not arise for
breakfast. He went for the auto
mobile of his own volition and at
his own suggestion took his sister
and other young ladies out for a
ride. An accident resulted in in
jury to one Morris, who sued the
father.
Now it is a general rule of law
that father is not liable for the
torts of his son committed without
his knowledge or authority, express
or implied" If child under age
commits wrong injuring another
while not acting under parent
authority or control the parent is
not legally liable in damages to the
injured party.
But in the case stated above the
Kentucky Court ruled that the
father was liable and required that
he pay the damages. 1t recognized
the general rule, but took the view
that when a father purchases car
for the use of the family and the
son is authorized to drive it for the
family's pleasure, the son becomes
the agent or servant of the father in
drying the car and the father is re-
sponsible for the results of his neg
ligence while SO engaged. The ell
ment of service TO the father here
seemed to be in the boy taking his
sister riding.
This case may be an unfortunate
example as far as conveying an i'm
preston of the general rule of law
is concerned, but when compared
with other cases it shows the con.
fusion that exists in the law in fix.
ing the liability for such accidents.
The automobile is newcomer.
Children very generally drive the
fathers car and cases of the respon.
Sibility Of the father are continually
arising. A child being liable fol-
his own torts may, of course
always be sued. But generally the
child has no property and damages
cannot be collected. Thus it is
that the effort is usually made tt
reach the father.
The case stated above goes {
long way from the general rule anC
most courts would probably hole
that the son was operating the cal
for his own purposes outside hi:
fathers authority and control anc
that the father had no liability fo
accidents resulting. Many case:
OF this kind have come before thu
courts. The situation usually !!
that the father owns car that th'
son has general authority cooperate
it whenever he wishes for his owl
pleasure or purposes. When thu
son takes the car out for some par
pose of his own and negligently in
jures another the father is general,
held to have no legal responsibility,
in the matter and recourse must b.
had against the son alone.
Mr.. Buck was dealer in agri
cultural implements, buggies ant
automobiles in Davenport, Iowa
He decorated an electric AUTOMOBILE
belonging to him for use In Z pa
rade, in which it was driven by hi
daughter. After the parade tn
machine was left standing in from
of the fathers store. The son
Emil Buck, had for some time bee
employed in his fathers store bu
had been granted a holiday. Il
decorated a steam machine, an,
with a party of friends drove
about town without event, returning
it to his fathers premises. H
went away for time and In th
meantime the daughter returnel
and left the electric on the street i
front of the store. Buck directe
an employee to take it in and 500
- C.