Forest City press. (Forest City, Potter County, D.T. [S.D.]) 1883-19??, 1917-09-06

V0FS.
Theoretically John Emerson labosed Ia
his fathers office. But cares sit lightly
on the shoulders OF a boy OF "a and On
This morning he found nothing at the
pffce that seemed to require his atteN-
non. and left without seeing hte father.
fteturnlng home, he got out the family
fnotor car OF his own volition and took his
sister for a drive. Mr.. Emerson kept the
EAR FOR the pleasure of his family and both
foh and daughte had the right TO use the
car as they liked. Generally John drove it.
Driving carelessly. John ran down ono
Patrick Moran, and Patrick brought suit
tor damages against the senior Emerson.
eekine to hold him for the injuries In
Nicted by his son while driving the family
ear. Now it is a general rule of law that
? father is not liable for the wrongs done
py his son. committed without his knowl-
edge or authority.
But in the case OF the Emersons the
sourt held the father responsible. It rec
pgnized the general rule, but took the view
mat when a father keeps a car fur the
use of the family, and the son drives 1t for
me 1ami!ys pleasure, the son becomes the
agent or servant OF the father in driving
the car with permission. and the father
is responsible for the results Of his negli-
Eence while SO engaged. The element OF
service To the father here seemed to be
that ne was taking his sister driving.
Inc courts OF the various states. while
they agree upon the general rule Of the
sather's responsibility, are in seeming dis
agreement in applying it i'm varying cir
cu%lmstances. But the tendency seems to
be to go far in presnming that the son =
serving the father in driving the car, and
20 holding the father responsible.
A child, being liable in damages for the
injury he causes another. may always b0
sued. But generally the child has no prop
erv and IQmnOae nonNnt Ia N10nnAn<H
anus 1t is that the effort Is usually made
TO reach the parent. The situation usu-
ally IL that the father keeps a car RS 4
pleasure vehicle for the family and the
son has general permission to use it as
he will. When the son or daughter takes
the car out for some purpose entirely
personal. and negligently Injuries another.
the father is GENERALLY held to have no
legal responsibility in the matter and re-
course must be had against the hid
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 -
concerned. He is hired to run the car.
there is more likely to he evidence that
ne was engaged on the masters business
| when an accident occurred, and 30 the
master is held liable. But If a chauffeur
takes a machine without authorization
or even borrows it for his own pleasure.
and an accident results. the chauffeur
alone is generally held liable, where he
was not in any sense engaged in his mas
ter's business. The chauffeur is engaged
IN mis- masters business Just as truly while
going on errands alone, going for the own
err. or testing the car. as though the mas
ter were actually present. In either casa
the master is liable for his servants acts.
1t should be remembered that the state
legislature may, and frequently does, pass
i AnmR EnAniQl Cfoft1fA NnnncSnD ., P,rfH>A
or different liability, on various. classes.
which may vary the general rule Of law.