Jimmo v. Frick

Citations

• 255 Pa. 353
• 99 A. 1005
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 458

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant■ — -Automobiles — Chauffeur — Chauffeur furnished by garage.</p> <p>1. In order to hold the owner of an automobile liable for the negligence of the driver it is not necessary to show the driver to have been In the general employment of the defendant, or that he was under any special engagement of service to him, or entitled to compensation from him directly. It is enough that at the time of the accident he was in charge of the defendant’s property by his assent and authority, engaged in his business, and, in respect to that property and business, under his control.</p> <p>2. Where, in an action against the owner of an automobile to recover damages for injuries sustained through the operation of the ear while being driven by a chauffeur, the disputed question was whether the relation of master and servant existed between the owner and the chauffeur, the court properly charged the jury that such relationship existed and, that defendant was liable if the chauffeur was negligent, where it appeared that' the defendant had no regular chauffeur and did not drive the car himself, but whenever he used the car procured a driver from a garage at a stipulated rate, which he paid directly to the garage on a monthly account; that the driver on each occasion was selected by the garage from among its employees; and that the accident in question occurred while the chauffeur was engaged in driving the car back to the garage after the defendant had been driven to a given destination.</p> <p>Luckett v. Reighard, 248 Pa. 24, distinguished.</p>