Court Opinion

ID: 9704892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:49:23.408774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:06.335409
License: Public Domain

Simmons, C. J.,
dissenting.
I concur in the result.
I dissent from the holding of the court that the negligence of the husband driver of the car is not imputed to the plaintiff who was the owner of the car.
Plaintiff pleaded that the accident and her damages were the proximate result of the negligence of the defendants and each of them “without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff or the operator of plaintiff’s car in which she was a passenger.” Defendants, answering separately, denied generally, and alleged that the automobile in which plaintiff was riding was being driven by her husband as her agent; that the accident and injuries were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the plaintiff and her driver; and that the negligence of plaintiff’s driver was more than slight.
Plaintiff was the owner of the car in which she was riding, which was driven by her husband. The plaintiff does not drive a car and never has driven. The husband operated the car and drove the car for plaintiff whenever she had to go someplace. He was the only one in the family who drove the car. Before the accident, the husband had driven the car to the home of plaintiff’s parents, got them, and brought them back to plaintiff’s and his home. This was done at the request of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, the husband, his *808cousin, and the plaintiff’s parents then started to visit a sister of plaintiff who was a patient in an Omaha hospital. The husband was driving, the plaintiff was in the middle of the front seat, with the cousin on the right. Plaintiff’s mother and father were in the back seat. They intended to pick up another sister of the plaintiff and take her to the hospital with them. They forgot to pick her up. They then turned their course to go to the sister’s home to pick up the sister. The plaintiff asked the husband to pick up the sister. This evidence is undisputed and largely comes from the plaintiff.
Under these circumstances, defendants contend that the negligence, if any, of the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding was imputable to plaintiff and that the jury should have been so instructed.
The court relies on the rule as stated in Petersen v. Schneider, 154 Neb. 303, 47 N. W. 2d 863. That rule recognizes that the negligence of the operator is imputable to the owner “where the operator is the owner’s servant or agent, or * * * where the owner assumes to direct the operation of the automobile and to exercise control over it.”
In Petersen v. Schneider, supra, we modified the holding in Sutton v. Inland Construction Co., 144 Neb. 721, 14 N. W. 2d 387, which was a case where the owner was riding in his car while it was driven by another. We there held that ownership alone is not sufficient to establish the existence of the relationship of principal and agent or master and servant, pointing out, however, that in the Sutton case there was evidence that the owner was directing the driver and exercising some control over the operation of the car. That evidence is here also.
The court also cites our decisions that the negligence of a husband while driving an automobile in which his wife is a guest is not imputable to her because of that relationship;, that the owner of an automobile may be *809a guest in his- own car; and that the mere fact of ownership is not sufficient to impose that liability. These decisions do not reach to the facts of this case.
Our disagreement here is not as to the rule but its application to the facts as shown by the evidence of the plaintiff.
The court sets out no decision of ours which goes to the fact of the agency of the driver or the fact of the owner directing the operation of the automobile and exercising control over it such as we have here.
Other states have faced those fact questions and decided them contrary to the decision of the court in this case.
There are many cases dealing with this general problem. We have searched out those where we find comparable fact situations. Wilcott v. Ley, 205 Wis. 155, 236 N. W. 593, was a case where the plaintiff husband owned the car. His wife was driving at his request and because he was tired. They were returning from a dance.. The court held: “The undisputed evidence discloses that plaintiff’s wife, at the time of the accident, was driving his car at his request and rendering a-service beneficial to him, which otherwise he would have been obliged to perform himself. We cannot escape the conclusion that she was plaintiff’s agent and that her negligence is imputed to him.” In reviewing this case in Rule v. Jones, 256 Wis. 102, 40 N. W. 2d 580, that court said that the person there “held to be the agent was performing a task which would devolve upon the principal if he wished to accomplish his immediate purpose.” That is the situation here.
Foley v. Hurley, 288 Mass. 354, 193 N. E. 2, was a case where the plaintiff owned the car in which she was riding. It was being driven by a minor son. They were on their way to school, and the plaintiff went for the purpose of driving the automobile back to her home. Plaintiff gave the son no directions as to his operation of the automobile or the route he was to follow. (In the instant case there were directions given by the *810plaintiff as to where the car was to be driven.) The question was whether or not the evidence sustained a finding that the son was the plaintiffs' agent. The court held: “The fact that she gave no directions as to its operation or as to the route does not have a controlling influence in deciding that question. There is nothing to show that up to the time the collision was imminent any circumstances appeared which called for her exercise of the power of control. The test of the existence of the relationship of principal and agent is the right to control and not the actual exercise of control by the principal. * * * When the owner of an automobile is riding in it while another is driving, in the absence of controlling evidence to the contrary, the inference is warranted that the owner has retained the right to control its operation.”
Angel v. McClean, 173 Tenn. 191, 116 S. W. 2d 1005, was a case where the wife owned the car. At the time of the accident the husband was driving, and the wife was occupying the front seat with him. He was going to his work, after which the wife was to take the car, park it, and then walk to the office of her physician for treatment. The accident happened en route to the place where the husband worked. The court extensively reviewed many authorities, and held that the driver’s negligence was imputable to the owner-wife. The court quoted this language from Challinor v. Axton, 246 Ky. 76, 54 S. W. 2d 600: “ * * Clearly, in such a case the owner (which is the wife in this case) by her consent and acquiescence selected her husband as a suitable person to, not only operate her car for her own purpose, but also to guard and protect her personal safety while traveling in her car with him as driver, and since the negligence of a stranger as her agreed chauffeur would be imputed to her, we conclude that the same principles should apply when her selected chauffeur is her husband.’ ” The language is applicable here.
*811Lucey v. Allen, 44 R. I. 379, 117 A. 539, was a case where the wife of the driver of the car owned the automobile. The question was whether the negligence of the driver could be imputed to the wife. The court held: “If in this case the negligence of Mr. Prendergast is imputed to his wife, such determination would not be made because of the marital relation, but because she was the owner of the automobile, that it was being operated by the husband for the wife in furtherance of a purpose in which she was an interested party, and because from those circumstances the relation of principal and agent would arise between Mrs. Prendergast and her husband. It appears that at the time of the collision the Prendergasts were returning from a day’s outing at Pearl Lake near Franklin, Massachusetts; that for the purpose of carrying out-this day of pleasure in which she was interested and took part she had furnished her automobile and being unable to operate it herself she had procured her husband to run it. In accordance with the rule of agency applicable with reference to a so-called ‘family automobile,’ the owner is undoubtedly chargeable with the negligence of another member of the family who is driving, if the owner is a passenger and it is being used for a purpose in the accomplishment of which the owner is interested. In such circumstances the relation of principal and agent arises between the owner and the member of the family driving the machine.”
In Petersen v. Schneider, supra, we cited for the rule the sole decision of Rodgers v. Saxton, 305 Pa. 479, 158 A. 166, 80 A. L. R. 280, “and cases cited in the annotation thereto.”
The Rodgers case held: “* * * a wifé who is riding in her own automobile while it is being driven by her husband is not prima facie chargeable with the husband’s negligence in driving the automobile * * *. ‘To hold that the facts, as shown here, constituted agency would be carrying the principle of implied agency too *812far. 'If one is riding in a vehicle with another who is his agent or employee, he is responsible for his acts, but to hold that when a husband drives the car of his wife, she being in it, that he is her agent without any proof of how or under what circumstances he is driving it, is to go much further than the law has done or we are willing to do.’ ”
Here there is proof of how and under what circumstances he was driving it, which proof in this instance was furnished by plaintiff.
I call attention to the cases cited in the annotation to 80 A. L. R., page 286, under the heading “Car operated by member Of owner’s family.” The author of the annotation states: “The fact that one was riding in his automobile while it was being driven by a member of his family will not necessarily render him liable for an injury resulting from its negligent operation. His liability, apart, from statute, generally depends upon whether the car was being driven by his servant or agent, and his presence in the car is evidence of that fact.”
I also call attention to the case of Powers v. State, 178 Md. 23, 11 A. 2d 909, wherein the court held: . “If the owner of a car either requests or allows another person to drive while he is occupying it, his request of (or) permission will not of itself exclude his right of control. The owner has the right and the duty to prevent, if possible, the driver from operating the machine in a reckless and dangerous manner. If the car is negligently operated, it is presumed that the owner consented to the negligence. Therefore, in the absence of proof that he abandoned the right of control, he is liable for any damage resulting from the negligence of the driver.”
The undisputed evidence in this record requires the conclusion under the rule in Petersen v. Schneider, supra, that the negligence of the driver of plaintiff’s car, if any, was imputed to the plaintiff.
*813I submit that the decision in the Petersen case puts this court in accord with the dominant rule in this country. I find no reason for wrapping the cloak of immunity around the owner of a car under the circumstances here.