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

family and an automobile. Inc car
was kept by the father for the COM
fort and pleasure of the entire fami- |
ly. Son and daughter had the right |
to use the ear as often as they liked.
The father knew how to drive the
car but the son generally managed
it. AS the spirit moved him Robert
Stowe, the son, took his sister riding,
and often he took his mother with
him. The nlcA.la was used by the
family for the pleasure of the family.
Robert operated the car with his
father permission and had the auth
ority to use it when he wanted to,
and the daughter had like right.
Robert Stowe, who was eighteen
years Of age, was q 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 ride.
An accident resulted in injury 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 a child under age
commits wrong injuring another
while not acting under a parents
authority or control the parent is
not legally liable in damages to the
injured party. But in the case stat
ed above the Kentucky Court ruled
that the father was liable and re-
quired that he pay the damages. 1t
recognized the general rule, but took
the view that when a father pur-
chases a car for the use of the family
and the son is authorized to drive it
for the family's pleasure, The son be-
comes the agent or servant of the
father in driving the car and the
father is responsible for the results
of his negligence while so engaged.
The element 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 confus-
ion that exists in the law in fixing
the liability for such accidents. The
automobile is a newcomer. Children
very generally drive the fathers car
and cases of the responsibility of the
father are continually arising A
child being liable for his own torts
may, of course, always be sued. But
generally the child has no property
and so damages cannot be collected.
Thus it is that the effort is usually
made to reach the father.
| The case stated above goes a long
way from the general rule and most
COURTS would probably hold that the
son was operating the car for his own
purposes outside his fathers author
| ity and control and that the father
had no liability Tor accidents result
ing Many cases of this kind have
come before the courts. The situa-
ton usually is that the father owns
car that the son has general auth
ority to operate whenever he wishes
for his own pleasure or purposes.
| When the son takes the car out for
some purpose of his own and negli-
gently Injuries another the father is
generally held to have no legal re-
sponsibility in the matter and re-
course must be had against the son
alone.
Mr. Buck was dealer in agricul,
acknowledgements, buggies and auto
mobiles in Davenport, Iowa. He dec
GRATED an e,ectgic automobile belong
ing to him for use in a parade, in
which it was driven by his daughter.
After the parade the machine was
left standing in front of the father Z
store. The son, Emil Buck, had for