Opinion ID: 1869115
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Master-Servant

Text: In order to establish a principal/agent relationship between [Pansy and Donald], the principal must have a `right to control.' Bach v. Winfield-Foley Fire Protection District, 257 S.W.3d 605, 608 (Mo. banc 2008); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 359, 362 (Mo.1963). Under the laws of agency, the principal does not need to control or direct every movement of the agent, only that necessary to the accomplishment of the final result. Bach, 257 S.W.3d at 610. Again, however, there is a more restrictive approach applied in cases involving a husband and wife. As a general proposition of law, the wife, lacking the right to control her husband's actions, and he being in no sense of the law her servant or agent, is merely to be regarded as her husband's guest when riding with him in an automobile which he is driving, and his negligence, if any, in the operation of the automobile is therefore not to be imputed to her. McAuliffe v. Vondera, 494 S.W.2d 692, 694 (Mo.App.1973). Paragraph 6 of the amended petition states that, at the time of the accident, Donald was acting as Pansy's agent but it fails to provide any facts to support the allegation more than that a husband-wife relationship exists between Pansy and Donald. This is insufficient to establish that Pansy had a realistic right of control over the operation of the vehicle. Plaintiffs' petition does not adequately plead the necessary facts to state a claim for master-servant in a husband and wife situation.