Court Opinion

ID: 9507893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:26:08.219507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:24.914716
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
McArthur, in claiming that he had implied permission to use the Huntley vehicle, consistently testified that he would have to have had a “good purpose” to use the vehicle. The majority opinion states, “From the facts of this case the jury could have found, and did find, that leaving the scene to avoid a curfew violation was within the implied permission.”
In my view, the plaintiff was entitled to a jury instruction on the question of the permittee excluding or deviating from the scope of the permission given. The plaintiff offered such an instruction, which was refused by the court.I would reverse and remand for failure to give adequate jury instructions.