Case Name: EDNA M. COOK v. J. PORTER STEDMAN
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1936-06-15
Citations: 210 N.C. 345
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDNA M. COOK v. J. PORTER STEDMAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
EDNA M. COOK v. J. PORTER STEDMAN.
(Filed 15 June, 1936.)
Automobiles E a—
In order for tbe owner of an automobile to be beld liable for injury-inflicted by a person to whom be bad loaned tbe car, tbe injured person must show, in addition to the fact of ownership, that tbe person to whom tbe car was loaned was reckless and incompetent, and that tbe owner bad knowledge of this fact.
Appeal by plaintiff from Clement, J., at February Term, 1936, of E oesyth.
Affirmed.
Action for damages for personal injury, alleged to have been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant in tbe operation of bis automobile by an incompetent driver to whom it bad been loaned.
At tbe conclusion of tbe plaintiff’s evidence, motion for judgment of nonsuit was sustained, and from judgment in accordance with this ruling, plaintiff appealed.
E. E. Bisner, John C. Wallace, and Parrish ■& Deal for plaintiff.
Hutchins & Parker for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The only ground upon which plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon the defendant, the owner of the automobile, is the incompetency of the driver to whom it was loaned.
It is well settled that liability does not arise from mere ownership of an automobile, nor can it be based solely on the danger of the machine. The burden was on the plaintiff to show, in addition to the fact of ownership, that the car was loaned to a reckless and incompetent driver, and that the incompetency of the driver was known to the owner. Huddy on Automobiles, 795-797, 838; Taylor v. Caudle, ante, 60; Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95.
The only pertinent evidence offered by the plaintiff on this point was: (1) The admission in the answer that the automobile "bad been loaned to Lybrook" (the driver) ; (2) the statement by the defendant that "be bad asked bis wife not to let the boy have the car. He didn't say why"; (3) the testimony of witness Orrell, a resident of Davie County: "His general reputation as driver of automobiles is reckless, careless, and dangerous. . . . He bad the general reputation I stated, ever since be has been in Davie County, ever since 1927, since bis father moved over there to Davie County." The defendant and bis wife live in Forsyth County, in the city of 'Winston-Salem. There was no evidence of any instance of recklessness or incompetency on the part of Lybrook.
We conclude that the evidence offered is insufficient to impose liability on the defendant, the owner of the automobile, for the negligence of the driver in its operation on the occasion alleged.
Judgment of nonsuit is
Affirmed.