Court Opinion

ID: 9853243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:45:02.268976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:43.470410
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(concurring). Defendant Palmer testified :
“I was told I could use it to go to and from work. Well I assumed that was home, to and from work. In other words I was told that I could use this tractor to go to my home from my work and back. And I was told that.”
Defendant Edward Wiederhold testified:
“He (Palmer) asked us if at any time he was neai-his home if he could take the trailer and stop by his house and of course we have no objection to that.. * * *
“Well, I talked to him at the first meeting, he asked about insurance on his tractor and I advised him,, told him then that the boys buy today what they call bobtail insurance. As I understand it, it is insurance-issued only when you are unhooked off of an operation of this type with the tractor going home or you may be using it on a Sunday afternoon but it is for your own use.”
I am concurring with Justice Edwards’ opinion because I believe the record establishes facts calling-for a determination by a jury and, secondly, because *396defendants’ rights and interests were properly protected by the court in the following instruction given by the court to the jury:
“Now if you find — even if you find that Palmer was negligent and that his negligence was the proximate cause of this accident and injury, and the plaintiffs themselves were free from contributory negligence — if you should also find that Wiederhold did not give to Palmer consent to drive that tractor while disconnected, then in such case the Wiederholds would not be liable, but if, on the other hand, you do find the elements necessary to find Palmer liable and you further find that Palmer was given consent by the Wiederholds to drive that tractor while disconnected, as Mr. Palmer testified, then the Wiederholds would only be liable if at the time of the accident Palmer was driving within the terms that Wieder-hold has consent to. The consent, according to Palmer’s testimony was to use the tractor to and from home and work. If you find such consent it would be for you to determine whether at the time of the accident he was driving the tractor for that purpose and reasonably in pursuance of that consent. He would not be driving with Wiederhold’s knowledge or consent if at the time he was not driving reasonably within the meaning of the consent which had been granted him. If he should depart for his own purposes from the consent use he would not be liable while so departing from the consented use. If he goes outside the consent or permission, that is, permission to use the tractor to and from his home and work, if he goes outside of that consent and if at the time of the accident he was outside of that consent, the Wiederholds would not be liable. You may take into consideration all the circumstances which you find to be true in considering whether or not at that time — if you find there was consent to use the tractor to and from work — whether or not at that time, at the time of the accident he was so using the tractor. You may take into consideration all the evidence in-*397eluding the kind of equipment, the lease, and all the other evidence which you find hears upon that question, in determining that question. If he was not driving reasonably within the granted consent, as for instance if he had gone on a personal or independent joy ride of his own or if he was not on his way home-from work, he wouldn’t be within the consent.”
Dethmers, C. J., concurred with Kelly, J.