Court Opinion

ID: 9809912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:32:58.143997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:10.119369
License: Public Domain

"Waxiker, J.,
dissenting, as to defendant J. W. Stewart: My opinion is that the case was properly submitted to the jury as to the father, J. ~W. Stewart, who is codefendant of his son. There is no evidence in the record that he authorized or permitted his son to, drive the automobile on this occasion, nor did he know that the son had usurped the chauffeur’s place until after this unfortunate accident. The case of Davis v. Littlefield, 97 S. C., 171, has no application, as the facts of the two cases are materially unlike. Nor is this a case where the *207master bas knowingly or unknowingly retained an incompetent servant in bis employ to do bis bidding, because *tbe defendant J. W. Stewart bad not authorized .bis son to drive tbe automobile, but, on tbe contrary, bad placed another person, who was an adult, in charge of it, with directions as to what should be done with it. Tbe fact that tbe father bad permitted tbe son to drive the car on other occasions, even several times, did not deprive him of tbe right to change this course of action and employ another driver. Tbe question is not whether this employee supposed that tbe father would approve, if be deserted bis po,st and transferred the control of tbe ear to tbe son, but whether tbe father bad actually authorized tbe son to drive tbe machine at tbe time, and of this there is no legal evidence. I take a very different view of Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95, from that stated in tbe Court’s opinion. It was there held, upon tbe authority of many cases reviewed by tbe Chief Justiee, that an automobile is not per se a dangerous machine, and that negligence in its use or management must be shown before liability for an injury will attach. “It is well known,” says tbe Court, “that they are being devoted to and used for tbe purposes of traffic, and as conveyances for tbe pleasure and convenience of all classes of persons, and without menace to tbe safety of those using them or to others upon tbe same highway, when they axe operated with reasonable care. Tbe defendant cannot, therefore, be held liable upon the ground that tbe automobile is a dangerous contrivance. Steffen v. McNaughton, (Wis.) 26 L. R. A., 382, which further states that this principle has been adopted in Slater v. Thresher Co., 97 Minn., 305; McIntyre v. Orner, (Ind.) 4 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1130; Lewis v. Amorous, 3 Ga. App., 50; Jones v. Hoge, (Wash.) 14 L. R. A. (N. S.), 216; Cunningham v. Castle, 111 N. Y. Sup., 1057. There are many other cases to the same effect, among them, Vincent v. Crandall, 115 N. Y. Sup., 600; Danforth v. Fisher, 75 N. H., 3; Freibaum v. Brady, 143 App. Div. (N. Y.), 220.” And again: “A parent is not liable for the torts of his minor son. The relationship does not alone make a father answerable for the wrongful acts of his minor child. There must be something besides relationship to connect him with such acts before he becomes liable. It must be shown that he has approved such acts or that the child was his servant or agent. Johnson v. Glidden, 74 Am. St., 795, which cites a large number of cases. This is quoted and approved in Brittingham v. Stadiem, 151 N. C., 300, this Court adding: ‘Wherever the principles of the common law prevail, this is a well established doctrine.’ It is there said that where the son is acting of his own will and. for his own purposes, and not as his father’s agent pro hac vice, the latter is not liable for his son’s acts, even if negligent, and he cites for this, Way v. *208Powers, 57 Vt., 135, where it appeared that a son wlio was living as a hired man on bis father’s farm took his horse without his permission, though he would have given permission if asked, and drove to the railroad station for one of his friends. He there tied the horse, which broke loose -and ran into the plaintiff’s team and injured him. It was held that though the son was negligent, the father was not liable. The case of Reynolds v. Buck, 127 Iowa, 60, was also cited with approval, where it was said that 'the owner of an automobile is not liable from injury resulting from the negligent operation of the machine by a son, without the father’s knowledge and consent, and not at the time in his employ or about his business.’” But the case of Doran v. Thomsen, 76 N. J. L., 754, which is also approved and greatly relied on in Linville v. Nissen, is exactly in point. I will state in the language of this Court what it decided: “Where a father was in possession of an automobile which he kept upon his premises, and his daughter, about 19 years of age, was accustomed to drive it, and did so whenever she felt like it, asking permission to use it, when the father was at home, but when not at home taking it sometimes without permission, it was held that when she used the machine for her own pleasure, and negligently injured a person on the highway, there was no proof sufficient to constitute her the servant or agent of the master, and that her father was .not responsible. This case is thoroughly discussed and cites numerous authorities which sustain the proposition that 'the doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of wrong, at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose.’ It also cites numerous authorities to the other well settled principle that 'the mere fact of the relation of parent and child does not make the child the servant of the defendant’ in actions for tort.”
It seems to me that Linville v. Nissen strongly sustains the view I take of this case. It results that the son was not the servant of the father at the time of this accident, and the latter, therefore, is not responsible for acts so as to be affected by the provision of the statute as to certain minors driving automobiles, nor by the principle last quoted by the Court in its opinion in this case, from Linville v. Nissen, in regard to the father’s liability for negligence in placing a dangerous machine or implement in the hands of his child of tender years, which causes injury to another.
But there may be some evidence in this case of negligence, not original, but imputable to the father, which if it proximately caused the injury would be actionable. The car was in the custody and charge of the *209chauffeur who bad been employed by tbe father, and, therefore, was his servant. It is the duty of an agent to obey his principal and to be loyal and faithful to his interests, and there is another equally binding duty to exercise care, shill, and diligence in performing the task assigned to him. If he fails in this respect while acting within the scope of his employment, and thereby injures another, the master becomes liable for his act to the one who is damaged. 31 Cyc., 1582 et seq. So in this ease, if the servant in charge of the car relinquished his control of it to the owner’s son, who was young and inexperienced, and by reason thereof the son carelessly and negligently ran over the child and caused its death, the father would be liable, provided the chauffeur was at the time acting within the scope of his authority. But it appears that the court substantially submitted this feature of the case to the jury, telling them that there was evidence of negligence. There was evidence that the son was an experienced chauffeur, and as in the view herein taken the statute as to minors does not apply, it is more than likely that the jury concluded that there was no negligence in turning over the control of the car to the son, who. was .an expert chauffeur, or that if there was, it was not the proximate cause of the injury, and that the lamentable death of the child was the result of an unavoidable accident. My conclusion is that the judgment as to J. W. Stewart should be affirmed, as there was no reversible error as to him committed at the trial.