Court Opinion

ID: 9865691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:36:46.09939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:50:16.352185
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing urges that before respondents may recover it must be proved that Mr. Willi’s presence in the automobile (conceding though not admitting that the trip, so far as Mr. Bruce was concerned, was on company business) was connected with the business of appellant’s predecessor company. Respondents were asked to reply to such contention, but no authorities have been cited on the point by either side.
From the following authorities, the rule is that it is a question of the agent’s right or authority to invite a guest to ride, not the nature of the activity of, or the business or reason for, the guest being in the car, other than that he was such authorized invitee, which determines the master’s or employer’s liability. As indicated in the opinion supra, there was evidence to justify the conclusion that Mr. Bruce had authority to invite a guest to ride with him and that the trip was on company business, therefore the company would be liable to the guest whether the guest was on company business or not. (Philadelphia & Reading R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. (U. S.) 468, 14 L. ed. 502; Paiewonsky v. Joffe, 101 N. J. L. 521, 129 Atl. 142, 40 A. L. R. 1335; Tyler Co. v. Kirby’s Admr., 219 Ky. 389, 293 S. W. 155; Stout v. Lewis, 11 La. App. 503, 123 So. 346; Fedden v. Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 204 App. Div. 741, 199 N. Y. Supp. 9; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Marlin, 135 Tenn. 435, 186 S. W. 595, L. R. A. 1917A, 417; Nash v. Longville Lumber Co., 148 La. 943, 88 So. 226; 7-8 Huddy, Cyc. of Automobile Law, pp. 268, 269, sec. 101.)
Petition for rehearing denied.
Budge, C. J., and Morgan, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.