The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-01-13

elers are found using the highways at all seasons of the year, and at all times of the day and night and such au tomobile driver has no right to expect free and unobstructed drive way as does the engineer of a loco motive, or the motorman of a trolley car.' Tyler vs. Hoover, 138 N. W. 128.
 A Minors Responsibility.
 The responsibility of a car owner in case of accident should his son be driv- ing the car is one that comes up very frequently. Decision in favor of or against car owner in such cases can only be 1oked upon as precedents. and car. be considered as possible verdicts in future cases--,----s--ss-s
 Tn a rece1lt- czasssI as:isis mature, Franklyn A. Errington and his wife were joint owners of a motor car. and one day Errington was i'll, his wife took the machine out without his knowledge or consent and allowed their minor son to drive. During the trip Elizabeth TowersT was injured She Brought suit for negligence against Errington, but the court dis missed the case, holding that, The question is, was the boy on the day of the accident. engaged in the service or acting as tl1a agaht Of the Eat IeI. 2,' The decision apparently shows that~it concluded the boy was not acting in such service. supreme court, trial term, Richmond county, November 1912. Towers vs. Errington.
 A Corporation Not Responsible.
 A somewhat similar case was that in which the Arnold Engineering com pany owned st motor car, which was used in the sfirnass business. ne .slstx the officers took the car to go On a, pleasure trip, and injured one. Power. The court held that the negligence of the officers could not be imputed to the corporation, as they were not en- gagged in the connpanys s business when on the trip. Power vs- Arnold En- gdneering company, 126 N. Y. Supp. S3s.
 General Manager is Not Company.
 Another ease that is similarly de- cided is that in which the general manager of the company took one of the firms cars on a. business trip of his oWn- During the trip a pedes- trian was injured and he brought suit against the company The court dis missed the case, holding that the com pany was not liable for the conduct of own private business. Clark vs. Buck mobile company. 94, N. Y Supp. I'll
 Chauffeur Held.
 Still another case along the same line was that of cheuffeur who took his employers car without pernnis- sion and met with an accident. The owner of the car was not held re- sponsible. Stewart vs. Baruch, @93 N. r. Supp 161.
 The court has further decided that where a. father owns the car and is in the habit of allowing his son to drive it, the father is not liable for accidents caused by the sons negligence on days when the tson takes the car out with. out the fathers permission, and when he is not on his fathers business In this particular case the court held ssIt is well settled that the master Is not liable for injuries sustained by the negligence of his servant while engaged in an unauthorized act be yond the scope and duty of his ern-. pl loynnent for his own or another,s s purposes, although the servant s is using the i'm npIen ents or property or tn e master in such unauthorized act. Maher zss 3enedIst 10s N. Y. Supp