The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-31
LEGAL POINTS FOR
AUTOMOBILE OWNER
Kentucky Court Discusses Liza
bility of Motorist When
Son Drives Car.
BY our Legal correspondent.

In a case Just decided in Kentucky
the Court of Appeals deals with the
question OF To liability of the parent
for the negligence of his minor son. in
driving an automobile. In this case the
evidence showed that the owner of
car loaned the machine to a nineteen
year-old boy. The latter was driving
it. with his father and mother as
guests, and during the trip he negli-
gently collded with a horse drawn We
hicle. For the damage thus done to
the rig the owner sued the boys father.
In deciding that the father was not
legally responsible the court said:
The facts do not bring this case
within the recently announced automo-
bile family doctrine which makes the
parent able for injury done by car
on a highway when driven by the minor
child Of the owner, on the theory that
the car is being used by the child with
the direction of the parent or with his
consent and for the purpose for which
the car was intended when purchased
and therefore the child is the agent of
the parent in the operation of the car
If the owner had left the car in charge
of the father instead of the son, and
the father had directed his son TO use
the car on the occasion of the injury,
the father would have been liable even
though the car was driven by the son.
The son, according to the evidence, had
the custody and control of the car inde-
pendent of his father, and If he were
guilty of negligence. resulting in injury
to another, the father was not liable,
even though the son could be made to
respond in damages
The decreasing purchasing power of
the dollar is factor which must be
considered by the jury assessing dam
ages in automobile accident cases, ac-
cording to recent decision Of the Su-
preme Court of Minnesota. For this
reason previous rulings of the court
on the question of the measure of dam
ages in particular cases are not con-
trolling In this case the owner of a
car was injured when his machine was
struck by a truck. He suffered frac-
tured skull. and though his injuries
We're not permanent he had been DIS
abled for nearly a year and was stil
incapacitated His salary had peen
$500 year. On this state of facts the
court decided that a verdict of $4,000
was not excessive.
In the preceding case the court fur
Their decides that it is not negligent
for a. fnotorist to drive along through
street with his side curtains down and
to fail to look UP an intersecting street
except when he was about fifty feet from
the crossing At least, IL a truck comes
down the intersecting street at RAPID
pace and strikes the car when 1t reaches
the street intersection, the failure OF
the driver of the car to take a second
look up the intersecting street VIII not
bar him from suing the truck owner for
the negligent operation of that vehicle
The Federal law governing the right
Of an employee to damages for injuries
received by him in the course or his en-
ployment is much more liberal than the
laws of many of the States. Frequently
he question whether he can recover
damages at all depends solely upon
whether he can bring his case within the
provisions of the Federal law. so circum-
scribed is the protection afforded by
many State laws. This was the issue in
a recent Texas case The pertinent Fed
eral law involved in this case authorized
the recovery of damages II the employee
was engaged in Interstate commerce
at the time of the accident. The en-
rloyee was trucker. He was engaged
IN unloading bundles of paper from
truck at Hugo, Okla. This paper was
part oil n, shipment itN.'
and the trucker was employed by the
railroad company to make deliveries
from the cars to the consignees. Upon
this state of facts the work of the en-
uloyee was held by the Supreme Court
70 be Interstate commerce" within the
meaning of the law.
The Supreme Court OF Nebraska had
occasion recently to apply the estab-
lished principle-frequently referred to
in this series--that one injured in an
automobile accident cannot obtain dam
ages without showing some act OF negli-
gence on the part of the other party TO
the accident. In this case a guest riding
n his hosts car was injured when the
machine was struck by a street car
which was being backed out of a Y. The
evidence showed that the driver of the
automobile had ample opportunity to see
the movement of the street car In time to
avoid the accident Thus there was no
act of negligence on the part of the
street car company that could be said
to have been the cause of the accident.
For this reason the injured guest was
denied damages.
A side street which debouches into an
other street Is not "an intersecting high
meaning of an ordinance which requires
motorists to slow down and give signals
OF warning when approaching such
places. This ruling was made in re-
cent Missouri case.
An employer who supplies his statesmen
with an automobile for use in the per-
Torrance OF his duties is not responsible
for the negligent operation O. tie car
when the salesman is using 1t for his o-5x
purpose. In recent California case
the salesman of an oil company was sup
piled with car. The company paid for
all gasolene and other supplies and per-
mitted the salesman to keep the machine
In his own garage and to drive II for his
personal use after working hours
Through careless driving he Injured q
pedestrian when he was using the car
at night to keep n social engagement
The court decided that the oil company
could not be required TO pay damages L"
the injured pedestrian.
mr. r-xyr-n