Court Opinion

ID: 3886653
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:16:13.266527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:04.487730
License: Public Domain

The Court is in unanimous agreement that the judgment against the defendant, W.P. Kennedy, doing business as Piggly Wiggly Grocery Company, should be affirmed; but a majority think that the judgment as to the defendant, Meece, should be reversed. It seems to me, however, that the liability of Meece, under the facts of this case, rests, and the judgment against him should be affirmed, on the ground of the negligence of his driver, John Young, in permitting John Kennedy, a volunteer, to assist in the performance of the work intrusted to Young; the negligent acts of Kennedy, in the circumstances, "being done in the owner's service and while carrying out the driver's employment."
In 5 Blashfield's Cyc. of Automobile Law and Practice (Permanent Ed.), § 2921, page 52, the writer says: "In the absence of any express or implied authority in the employee to permit another to direct or assist in the direction of the movement of the car * * * the only safe and logical ground on which to rest the liability of the owner for the negligence of a volunteer assistant of his employee or servant is the negligence of the employee in inviting or permitting a volunteer or stranger to assist in the performance of the work intrusted to him. On this ground, liability of the master has been successfully asserted in a number of jurisdictions."
See the following cases for a full discussion of the question:McAdon v. Times Pub. Co. (Tex.Civ.App.),272 S.W., 814; Turoff v. Burch, 60 App. D.C., 221,50 F.2d 986; Emison v. Wylam Ice Cream Co., 215 Ala., 504,111 So., 216; Gates v. Daley, 54 Cal.App., 654, 202 P., 467;Conway v. Pickering, 111 N.J. Law, 15, 166 A., 76; ElkinMotor Car Co. v. Ragland, 6 Tenn. App., 166; Gibbons v.Naritoka, 102 Cal.App., 669, 283 P., 845; Thixton v. Palmer,210 Ky., 838, 276 S.W. 971, 44 A.L.R., 1379;Hendler Creamery Co. v. Miller, 153 Md., 264, 138 A., 1;Hollidge v. Duncan, 199 Mass. 121, 85 N.E., 186, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.), 982; Langan v. Nathanson, 161 Minn., 433, *Page 551 201 N.W., 927; Geiss v. Twin City Taxicab Co.,120 Minn., 368, 139 N.W., 611, 45 L.R.A. (N.S.), 382;Grant v. Knepper, 245 N.Y., 158, 156 N.E., 650, 54 A.L.R., 845;Malloy v. Svoboda, 29 Ohio App., 331, 163 N.E., 579;Jones v. Lozier, 195 Iowa, 365, 191 N.W., 103;Copp v. Paradis, 130 Me., 464, 157 A., 228; Kayser v. VanNest, 125 Minn., 277, 146 N.W., 1091, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.), 970; Slothower v. Clark, 191 Mo. App., 105,179 S.W., 55; Rosenbluth v. Concourse Van Co., 132 Misc., 647,229 N.Y.S., 609.