The citizen-Republican. (Scotland, Bon Homme County, S.D.) 1???-19??, 1917-09-06
WHEN THE FAMILY
USES THE CAR
chandIsf cooIey. in MiIestOnes..

Cooiets IN Ht~iteSIOnSs q
y your son Or daughter, when
driving your car. causes m acci-
dent, arc you legally r~esnonsibleY
s.@Tb answtsF 10 the question Is
here.
Theoretically John Emerson 1aborad I'M
his fathers office. But cares SIT lightly
on the sshouldcra OF a boy of Is and on
this morning he found nothing at the
office that seemed to require his atten-s
tfon, and left without seeing his father.
Returning home. he got out the family
motor car Of his own voiition and took his
sister for a drive. Mr.. Emerson kept ths
car for the pleasure OF his family and both
son and daughter had the right to use the
car q; they liked. Generaly John drove it
Driving carelessIy, John ran down ono
Patrick Moran. and Patrick brought suit
Tor dan2ages against the senior Emerson.
sfeeking to hold him for the INJURIES in.
Llic1ed by his son while driving the family
car. Now 1t Is 4 general rule of law that
g 1ather is not. liable for the wrongs done
by ms son, committed without his knowl-
or authority.
But in the case OF the Emersons tho
court held the father Responsible. It rec
ognizedS the general rule, but took the view
that when a father keeps a ear forsthe
use OF the family. and the son drives it for
thc Iapifya pleasure, the son becomes the
agent or servant of the father in driving
the car with permission, and the father
~ responsible for the results OF his negli-
gence while so gage The element OF
service to the father here seemed to bo
that he was taking his sister driving
me courts of the various states. while
they agree Upon the general rule Of the
fathers responsibility, are In seeming dis
agreement in applying it In varying cir
c~umstances. But the tendency seems to
be to go far IN presnrning that the son -
serving the father in driving the car. n
so ho,ding the father responsible.
A child. being liable in damages for tho
injury he causes another, may always b
sued. But generally the child has no prop
cry and damages cannot be collected
Thus It issthat the effort is usually made
TO reach the parent. The situation usu-
ally is that the father keeps a car as a
pleasure vehicle for the family and the
son has general permission to use it as
ne Will When the son or slaughter takes
the car out for some purpose entirely
personal. and ~negligently Injuries another.
the father IL generally held to have no
legal responsibility in the matter and re-
course must be had against the child.
But II the child is in any way serving tho
rather. in any sense acting for him, the
parent will be held responsible.
a chauffeur is in much the position OF
q son as far as the owners liability il
concerned. He is hired to run the car,
there Is more likely to be evidence that
ne was engaged on the masters business
when an accident occurred, and SO. the
master Is he'll liable. But II a chauffeur
takes o maehine without authorization.
or even borrawssjt for his own pleasure.
ard an accident results. the chauffeur
alone Is generally held liable, where he
was not In any sense engaged in his mas
ter,s busiress The chauffeur is engaged
IN his masters business Just az truly while
going on pyramids alone. going for the own
ser. or testing the car. as though the mas
ter were actually present. IN either case
the master Is liable for his servants acts.
4 shonti be remembered that the state
legislature may. and frequently does. pass
Eome sSecsal statute imposing a further
or different liability, or various classes,
which may vary the general rule az lar