Case Name: MARULLO v. ST. PASTEUR
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1919-03-31
Citations: 144 La. 926
Docket Number: No. 23094
Parties: MARULLO v. ST. PASTEUR.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 144
Pages: 925–927

Head Matter:
(81 South. 403)
No. 23094.
MARULLO v. ST. PASTEUR.
(March 31, 1919.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Master and Servant <§^=302(6) — Injuries to Third Persons — Liability oe Lender oe Automobile.
The president of a mercantile corporation, who lent his automobile to the company’s employé for the employé’s own purposes, was not liable for whatever damages the car might cause while being used by the employé, who was a competent driver.
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Ered D. King, Judge.
Suit by Gerome Marullo against Adolph U. St. Pasteur. Erom judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Judgment set aside, and suit dismissed.
Callan, Blancard & Viosca, of New Orleans, for appellant.
Woodville & Woodville, of New Orleans,, for appellee.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
An employé of the mercantile corporation of which defendant is president borrowed defendant's automobile for his own purposes, and was so using it for his own purposes when he accidentally ran against and injured plaintiff's child. There is no contention that the man was not á competent driver, or that defendant was guilty of any negligence in lending the car, but plaintiff's case is rested squarely upon the proposition that the owner of an automobile is liable for whatever damages the car may cause while being used by the borrower. The law is well settled the other way. 28 Cyc. 39; 2 R. C. L. pp. 1198 and 1199. In Black v. Rock Island R. R. Co., 125 La. 101, 51 South. 82, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 166, relied upon by plaintiff, the persons operating the locomotive were held to have been, under the circumstances, the agents of the railroad. The case could have a bearing upon the present case only if the borrower of defendant's automobile could be held to have been the agent of defendant on the occasion in question; but nothing of that kind is pretended.
It has been unnecessary for us to read the evidence on the question of whether the driver of the automobile was in any way negligent, and we have not done so.
Judgment set aside, and suit dismissed at plaintiff's cost.