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

MI. Stowe was County Clerk Of
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 1t. AS the spirit moved him
Robert Stowe, the son, took his sist-
err riding, and often he took his
aother with him. The machine was
Used by the family for the pleasure
OF the family. Robert operated the
car with his fathers permission and
lad the authority to use 1t when he
wanted to, and the daughter had a
like right.
Robert Stowe, who was eighteen
years Of age was a deputy in his ia
cher's office. Arriving at the office
one day and finding nothing to do
ne left without seeing his father. In
TACT he had not seen him that morn
.ag as he did not arise for break
last. He went for the automobile OF
Ills own volition and at his own sug-
gestion took his sister, and other
Dung ladies out for ride. An &C
cident resulted in injury to one Nor
Ills, who sued the father.
Now 1t Is a general rule OF law
chat father Is not "liable for the
.orts of his son committed without
lis knowledge or authority, express
or implied II child under age
commits wrong injuring another
while not acting under parents
authority or control the parent Ia moi
legally liable in damages to the IN
iured party.
But in the case stated above the
kentucky Court ruled that the faith
er was liable and required that he
Jay the damages. 1t recognized the
general rule, but took the view that
when father purchases car FOL
the use OF the family and the sor
Is authorized to drive 1t for the fam
ily's pleasure, the son becomes the
agent or servant Of the father In dri,
ing the car and the father ID re
sponsible for the results Of his neg
ligence while SO engaged. The ele
.nent Of service to the father here
seemed to be in the boy taking hi
sister riding.
This case may be an unfortunate
example as far as conveying an I'm
preston Of the general rule of Law
Is compared. but when compares
With other cases 1t shows the con
iusion that exists In the law in fix
ing the liability for such accidents
The automobile Ia newcomer
Children very generally drive tn
.ather's car and cases of the re
sponsibility of the father are con
tinually arising. A child being Il
able for his own torts may,
course, always be sued. But gener
ally the child has no property an
SO damages cannot be collected
thus 1t is that the effort Ia usual,
made to reach the father.
The case stated above goes q lonI
way from the general rule and mos
courts would probably hold that tn
son was operating the car for hi
own purposes outside his fathers au
thority and control and that tn
lather had no liability for accident
resulting. Many cases Of this kin
nave come before the courts. Tn
situation usually is that the fathe
owns car that the son has genera
authority to operate whenever h
wishes for his own pleasure or pull
poses. When the son takes the ca
out for some purpose Of his own an
negligently Injuries another the fatf
er il generally held to have no lega
responsibility in the matter and N
course must be had against the so
alone.
Mr.. Buck was q dealer In agricu
tural implements, buggies and autt
mobiles in Davenport, Iowa. He d.
corated an electric automobile belonl
ing to him for use In q parade, 1
which 1t was driven by his daughte
After the parade the machine wa
left standing In front of the father
store. The son, Emil Buck, had fc
some time been employed In hi
fathers store but had been granite
holiday. He decorated Q steal
machine, and with q party Of friend
drove 1t about town without even
returning 1t to his fathers premises
He went away for q time and
!, the meantime the daughter returne
: and left the electric on the sire,
in front of the store. Buck directe
an employee to take 1t In and 500
/ after left the store. Soon after II
, son returned and seeing the M
chine standing there invited q youn