Evening star., 1940-05-06
Owner Of Vehicle
Held BIameIess in
Chase Accident
Star Wins Ruling
In Cose Involving
Commondeered Truck

When a commercial vehicle is
Communicated by police In the in
terests Of law enforcement, the
owner Of the vehicle cannot be
blamed for resultant mishaps, the
United States Court Of Appeals held
today.
The ruling came when the appel
late court held The Evening Star
Newspaper Co. was not responsible
for an accident which occurred while
one Of its delivery trucks was pur-
suing a traf1ic violator at the COM
mand Of an onicer.
The case involved Peter Balinovic,
who sued for damages on the the
ory that the delivery truck was neg
ligently driven at the time it in
jured him in a collision. District
Court had ruled in favor of The Star
because the driver had left his route,
and his work of delivering papers,
and was following instructions of a
policeman who jumped on the run
ming board and stayed there.
The appellate court, in Affirming
the lower tribunals finding, pointed
out that the accident occurred on
June %, l933-before passage of
the statute which imposes liability
on the owner of car for the acts
of any person who drives it with
his consent. THE mere fact that
The Star had entrusted its car to
its driver" the opinion said, did
not make it liable"
Edgerton Writes Opinion.
Justice Henry w. Edgerton, who
wrote the opinion, said it was pos
sible that sympathy with law en-
forcement may be imputed to a
newspaper. Perhaps this extends
to a willingness to interrupt de-
livery of papers and risk damage
to truck, driver and public In order
to chase criminal But the fact
remains that The Stars business
Is not chasing criminals but pro-
ducing and selling papers When
its driver set out to catch a crimi-
nal he was doing the work of the
District of Columbia. The
Star did not regularly participate
in any direct way in the enforce
ment of the criminal law, was not
paid to do so and did not direct its
driver to do so"
Justice Edgerton added that 1--WE
need not decide whether The Star
was obligated to furnish to the Dis
trict a car and a man for use in
catching criminals. Even if it was,
it was not responsible to other per-
sons for the mans negligence in
doing the work. ." The Star,
by putting the driver on the road
and keeping him there, did not
create the risk that the criminal
catching activities of the District
would injure bystander. Whether
it created the risk that those &C
tivities of the District would injure
the driver, with the result that an
injury to him in the course of those
activities might be regarded as aris-
ing out Of and in the course of his
employment by The Star, is a ques-
ton which We need not decide"
Ruthledge Dissents.
Justice Harold M. Stephens con-
Cured in the opinion, but Justice
Wiley Rutledge dissented, holding
there is no solid foundation In rea-
son or authority for exempting cor
porations from the citizens general
obligation in this respect, or for
making their duty less broad than
that imposed on individual citizens" "
In Justice Rutledge's judgment, "the
driver did not depart from the
proper sphere Of corporate activity
or from his own employment when
he entered upon and took part in
the chase. In doing so, he dis
charged his employers duty to the
public and his own duty to the en-
ployer, as well as his own personal
obligation of citizenship"
AS for fixing the responsibility
elsewhere. the majority opinion cited
the case of Phelps VS.. Boone.
whether the Government should be
responsible, as a private employer
would be, in such cases as this" the
court said. "is for Congress to de-
eide"