Opinion ID: 1134243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the motion for directed verdict on behalf of appellees, w. henry holman, jr. and mrs. w. henry holman, jr., should have been denied.

Text: The record is uncontradicated that Mrs. Holman expressly requested her daughter, Sandra, to fetch the Jaguar, which was in the post office parking lot. Sandra testified: My mother asked me to go get the car so I did what my mother told me to. Appellant contends that such testimony constitutes Sandra as an agent of her parents. Appellant cites Woods v. Nichols, 416 So.2d 659 (Miss. 1982), for purposes of distinction rather than support for her position. She states in her brief that in Woods, no agency existed, as the alleged agent was not about the business of the alleged principal. In Smith v. Dauber, 155 Miss. 694, 125 So. 102 (1929), a woman was driving her husband's car, at his request, to pick him up at work. Along the way, an accident occurred due to the woman's negligence, and the injured party sought to hold the husband liable on an agency theory. The Court said: [T]he owner of an automobile being driven by another who is not his servant, or who was not driving the automobile for the owner's benefit at his express or implied request, is not liable for injuries negligently inflicted by such others in driving the automobile unless he [the owner] was negligent in permitting such other to drive the automobile. 155 Miss. at 699, 125 So. at 103. [3] This Court concluded that the request of the husband that his wife pick him up was insufficient to create an agency relationship since it was the wife's usual custom to provide her husband's transportation home. Further, in view of our disposition of Assignment I, the assigned Error II is rejected. There being no reversible error in the trial below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON, PRATHER, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON, GRIFFIN and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., not participating.