The Washington herald., 1917-03-18
FATHER NOT Held FOR
SONS AUTO ACCIDENTS
Court Rejects Contention That Law Of
Agency Applies.

An interesting case IN which the re-
sponsibility Of the owner Of an automo-
bile for the death Of . person struck by
the ear and killed while II was driver
by the defendants adult son was the
point at Issue. has recently been decided
By the New York Court Of Appeals The
son was q member Of the family Of the
defendant. At the time Of the accident
he was unaccompanied BY other members
Of the family and was pursuing solely
and exclusively his own pleasure AND
not any object of family entertainment
or convenience"
The contention In the suit was that the
son in these circumstances was acting as
the agent Of his father, the owner Of the
principal was responsible for the death
I'm q word the attempt was made To
apply to this case the law Of principal
and agent.
The Court of Appeals repected this
contention. holding that the son was not
acting as the agent Of his father. 1E
the decision II IL brought out that be-
cause an automobile Is considered, when
Sareiessly used, more dangerous than
other articles that AFFORD pleasure, the
law Of principal and agent could not be
stretched out of its true meaning on ac-
count of, that
Matter OF Common Sense.
This Is an advanced proposition In the
law of principal and agent" says the
court "and the question which II pre-
sents really resolves itself into the one
whether. as a matter of common sense
and practical experience. we ought to-
say that a parent who, maintains some
article for family use and occasionally
permits a capable son to use 1t for his
individual convenience ought to be re-
garded as having undertaken the occu-
patton Of entertaining the latter and to-
have made him his agent in this busi-
ness, although the act being done is solely
for the benefit Of the son. ''' But
II seems to US that such theory Is
more fllusory than substantial. and that
1t would be far-fetched to hold that a
father should become liable as principal
every time he permitted a capable child
to use for his personal convenience some
article primarily kept for family use.
That certainly would introduce into the
family relationship a new rule OF con-
duct which, SO far as we are aware,
has never been applied to other ard-
cles than an automobile.
I'VE have never heard It argued that
a man who kept for family use a horse
or wagon or boat or set Of golf sticks
had so embarked upon the occupation
and business Of furnishing pleasure to-
time he permitted one OF them to use
one Of those articles for his personal
enjoyment, the latter was engaged in
CARRYING out not his own purposes, but,
as agent, the business of his father.
''It seems to US that the present the
ory Is largely due to the thought that
because an automobile may be more dan
gerous when carelessly used than any
Of the other articles mentioned there
ought to be a larger liability upon the
part Of the owner, and to this end an
extension Of the doctrine Of principal
and agent In order properly to safeguard
its use.
And in the present case It Is in ef-
feet argued that because the use Of an
automobile upon a highway may be dan
Kerous and therefore Is a privilege SUB
ject to license by the state the courts
can apply a different rule of agency to
its use than would or could be applied
to the case of other articles which have
been mentioned. This kind of argument,
as 1t appears to US, discloses the novelty
and weakness of the proposition which Is
being urged upon u.s. 1t seems to dis
close the idea. as an essential part OF
the argument, that because an automo-
lille Is different from a horse or boat,
some advanced rules ought to be applied
To its use. But the rules Of principal
and agent are not thus to be formulated.
They are believed to be constant and not
variable in response to the supposed exi-
gencies of some particular situation.
THE question whether one person Is
the agent Of another in respect OF some
transaction Is to be determined by the
fact that he represents and Is acting for
him rather than by the consideration
that It will be inconyenient or unjust If
he Is not held to be his agent. II. con-
trary to ordinary rules, the owner of a
car ought to be responsible for the care
lessness Of every one whom he permits
to use It In the latter's own business,
that liability ought to be sought by leg
islation as a condition Of issuing a license
rather than by some new and anomalous
slant applied by the courts to the prin-
ciples Of agency"