Court Opinion

ID: 9451757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:23:05.686869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:52.617197
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
In American Fidelity Co. v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 124 Vt. 271, 204 A.2d 110 (1964), the car was entrusted by the owner of a sales agency to one of his salesmen to be demonstrated to a prospective customer. The accident occurred while the salesni'an was using it to drive away from the ordinary route to get ice cream for two little girls. In holding the accident to be covered by the omnibus clause in the insurance policy, the court said:
“[W]ith a showing that the vehicle was placed in the hands of the operator by consent, a presumption arises that the particular use to which the vehicle was being put was within the scope of that consent as measured by the law. The overcoming of this presumption requires evidence establishing that consent had been expressly withdrawn prior to the actual use, or that the actual use was so far afield from the purpose of the loan of the vehicle as to amount to, at best, a temporary tor-tious conversion * *
In the light of this case, I do not see how it can be said that as a matter of law there was a “tortious conversion.”