The Washington times., 1920-09-04

or the running board. The chauffeur
CO ntinusd on the direct route to tho
ssraKe. He was driving az over
thirty-nve miles per hour In passing
another vehicle be struck a third ear
that was on the proper side OF the
road. and jammsd one OF the boys be-
tween the truck and the car, causing
rim serious injuries. suit was brought
on behalf of the boy against the
owner OF the truck. The latter con
tended that he was not responsi BILE,
because the act of the chauffeur In
giving the boys a ride was beyond
the scope OF his duties and against
his instructions The court held. how
ever, that the owner WAS responsible
In damages Tor the accident.
The theory upon which this case
was decided Is that when an EN-
ploye Is driving an automobile in the
performance OF his duties. the en-
ployer is responsible FOR the unlawful
use OF the machine to everyone who
is injured as a result or such unlaw-
ful use, and for the purpose OF this
rule the operation OF the car is rem
dered wholly unlawful while the
speed regulations are being violated.
or course, IL the chauffeur had been
using the truck without the knowl-
edge OF its owner, the result would
have been entirely different in legal
sense. .
In a case recently decided in the
supreme court of Minnesota, II is
held that the measure OF damages for
the negligent injury OF motor
vehicle IL the difference between the
value OF the car before the accident
and it's value after the accident. The
selling value is the basis of the ap-
pIication OF this rule. Therefore. II
the repair OF the car will not restore
il in all respects TO its condition be
fore the accident, the owner Is entitled
to the difference. in addition to the
actual cost OF the repairs.
A recent decision of the supreme
court OF Wisconsin points out that
where a dangerous situation results
from the negligence OF one motorist
in approaching another. and the
course pursued by the latter in try
ing to extricste himself from the i'm
minent accident proves to be less
wise than other courses OF conduct
that were open, this does not mitigate
the liability of the frst motorist for
the resulting accident. In this case
the principle is applied to the extent
of refusing to deduct from the dam
ages the loss sustained by the neEli.
gent motorist as a result OF the un-
successful efforts of the other to avoid
the accident.
A decision of the Maryland court OF
appealsis to the effect that where an
oil company places a gasoline tank in
front of a garage, and secures an ex-
elusive contract for sale OF its prod
ucts by the garage. upon contracts
executed by two brothers, both broth
ers are equally responsible for all oil
and gasoline bought by the garage,
although only one OF the brothers
has any interest in the garage. In
this case 1t appears that the company
refused to install its tank unless both
/orothers would assume responsibility
for it's return and for the company's
exclusive right to furnish supplies to
the garage. 1t knew that the broth
ers were not partners, but the court
held that 1t was apparent that the
supplies were furnished upon the
credit of both brothers, and that both
understood this. II the other brother
had desired to avoid liability except
on the specific provisions of the con-
tracts, he should have notified the oil
company accordingly.
There are many cases dealing with
the question whether a guest riding
in an automobile is entitled to dam
ages for injuries sustained in an ac-
cident that was due to the joint negli-
gence of his host driving the carl
and the driver of another vehicle. OF
course, such joint negligence bars the
owner of each car from suing the
other. but some fine points are drawn
in the decisions in passing upon the
right of the guest to sue. A recent
Alabama case points out clearly the