Free trader-journal and Ottawa fair dealer. (Ottawa, Ill.) 1920-1927, 1922-12-11
THIS IS WHAT THE.
law HAS TO SAY OF.
USING DADS AUTO
GATHER IS HELD RESPONSIBLE
ron MiNoRs DRIVING MOTOR,
CARS IN EVENT OF ACCIDENT

Chicago. Dec. H. If fathers
laughter goes FOR a spin in the family
automobile n n d Intentionally
humps the rear end of another car
or brushes the ribs OF a hapiess
pedrestrain, who is to blame? small
father or daughter be held liable I'M
der the law.
The Illinois Supreme court touhu
n father liable for injury caused by
the negligent driving of daughter
IN the case of Graham VS.. rage
though Il has held a son liable ior
injury caused by his own driving OF
his fathers car in the earlier case
OF Arkin. VS. Page.
The court pointed out that the
facts in the two cases differed II
also maintained, the weight OF au'
thority supports the liability OF the
owned OF car which is kept Tor
family use and pleasure where an IN
iury is negiigently caused by 1t
while driven by one OF his children
by his permission. and the reasoning
OF those cases seems TO sound more
in harmony with the principles OF
Justice"
paul Il. Price, contributor to
the November Illinois Law Review
published monthly by the North
western University Press, noted tha'
there was no dissenting opinions III
the Graham case, but that three
justices dissented to the earlier Ar,
kin decision. He added that one OF
these. Justice Farmer. wrote the
Graham decision. The other dis
senting justices in the Arkin opin'
ion we're Carter and Cartwright.
Mr.. Price summarized the two
cases as follows:
"In the Graham case the court
held a father liable where an injury
was caused by the negligent opera
ton of an automobile driven by the
sixteen-year-old daughter. who was
using the car. at the time in CUES,
ton. to go to a shoe shop to call for
n pair of shoes she had left there TO
be, repaired m ~
''In the former case the automobile
was being used by the son to drive to
Lewis Institute for the purpose of
seeing If he could register in course
of study in the summer school. He
expected to pay the tuition himself
out of his own money and had not
talked with his father about going to-
school,
Basis Of Decision.
ON the present (Graham) case the
court says: The facts in that case
did not represent the question as it,
is presented here. In this case de-
PENDANTS daughter was not merely
driving the car for pleasure, but was
using it for family errand-one of
the purposes her father testified he
kept the car for and one of the pur-
poses he testified his daughter was
authorized to drive it for. The
daughter was only sixteen years old,
was engaged in no business. earned
no money, but lived with her par
ents and was clothed by them. 1t
was the duty and business of her
father TO provide her shoes, and
when needed. to have them repaired.
Instead of her father taking her
shoes TO the shop for repair and get
ting them when they had been done,
he permitted his daughter to do it
and authorized the use OF the car by
her for that purpose. She was per
forming the business duty Of hel
father in the manner and with the
means authorized by him. She was
if not the servant. at least the agen
of her father in the performance o
the duty or business"