Title: Pouliot v. Box
Citation: 246 P.2d 1050, 56 N.M. 566
Docket Number: 5517
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: July 31, 1952

246 P.2d 1050 (1952) 56 N.M. 566 POULIOT et al. v. BOX. No. 5517. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 31, 1952. *1051 W.T. O'Sullivan, Albuquerque, for appellants. Simms, Modrall, Seymour &amp; Simms and James E. Sperling, Albuquerque, for appellee. COMPTON, Justice. Appellants instituted this action against appellee for damages allegedly resulting from the negligent operation of an automobile by appellee's minor son. The son's negligence was put in issue by a general denial. Contributory negligence is also pleaded as a defense. A motion for summary judgent was interposed and based upon the affidavits and depositions filed in the cause and the testimony of appellee and his wife, the court entered judgment in favor of appellee from which this appeal is taken. Summarizing the undisputed evidence, it appears that Steven A. Box, Jr., the operator of the vehicle in question, at the time of the accident, was of the age of 17 years, living with and supported by his parents. He was quite thrifty and from his earnings, augmented by various gifts, he had accumulated sufficient funds to make the purchase of a Ford coupe, the vehicle involved. He attended the public school in Albuquerque and was permitted by his parents to use the vehicle for transportation to and from school, his place of employment, as well as for his own pleasure and recreation. Its upkeep also was paid out of his earnings. The "family purpose" doctrine is followed in this jurisdiction. It was approved in Boes v. Howell, 24 N.M. 142, 173 P. 966, L.R.A. 1918F, 288, and again in Stevens v. Van Deusen, 56 N.M. 128, 241 P.2d 331. Appellee contends, however, that the doctrine is inapplicable since the vehicle involved was the property of the minor son. This contention is without weight. Parents, by statute, are entitled to the custody, control and earnings of their minor children. The pertinent statute, Section 35-102, 1941 Compilation, reads: In Stevens v. Van Deusen, supra, we quoted with approval Robinson v. Ebert, 180 Wash. 387, 39 P.2d 992, 995, wherein that court held: We conclude summary judgment was erroneously granted. The status of the minor, whether emancipated, is a question of fact and cannot be decided as a question of law. Negligence and contributory negligence are likewise issuable. Since the case must stand for further consideration, another point merits notice. Appellants claim they were denied a trial by jury. On May 13, 1950, after issue was joined, appellee filed a notice with the clerk of the court directed to appellants and their attorney of record, which reads: Rule 38, our Rules of Civil Procedure, Section 19-101, (38) (b), 1941 Compilation, in part reads: Appellants did not treat the notice as a waiver of a jury by appellee, and on September 30, 1950, made a written demand for a jury. Thereafter, on January 8, 1951, the trial court being of the opinion that the notice filed by appellee effectively waived a jury, entered an order denying appellants' demand as being untimely. We think the court committed error in this regard. Before a party may call upon his adversary to file an election as to whether he demands a jury trial, he must first affirmatively waive a jury by filing with the clerk of the court a written notice to that effect. Clearly, the notice given by appellee did not inform appellants that a jury had been waived by him. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to enter an order reinstating the case upon its docket and proceed in a manner not inconsistent herewith. And It Is So Ordered. LUJAN, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE, and COORS, JJ., concur.