Johnson v. Glidden

Citations

• 11 S.D. 237
• 76 N.W. 933
• 1898 S.D. LEXIS 107

Syllabus

<p>1. In ¡m action for damages in consequence of the alleged negligent use of a gun in the hands of defendant’s minor son, the complaint set out a sufficient cause of action, where defendant was connected with such injurious act by allegations that he had purchased and given his son a gun, that such sou was in the habit of using it negligently, and that defendant so knew he was so using it, and encouraged and consented to such negligent use thereof.</p> <p>2. On an issue as to whether defendant's minor son was in the habit of using' a gun in a reckless manner, with knowledge of such use thereof on the part of defendant, it was not error to admit proof of the manner in which such gun was used by the son on other occasions than the one in question, where defendant's knowledge of such acts was shown by other witnesses.</p> <p>3. A declaration to the jury “that a father, as such, is not liable for the ordinary acts of his infant son,” in an instruction respecting the parents liability for an injury caused by a reckless act on the part of such child, though an erroneous statemeut of the law, is standing alone, was not prejudicial, where it was followed by such plain and explicit directions regarding the facts necessary to a recovery by plaintiff that it was impossible to believe that the verdict was influenced by such declaration.</p> <p>i 4. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict for damages for injuries received by plaintiff in consequence of the reckless use of a gun by defendant’s minor son, where the jury were warranted in finding that defendant kept a shotgun, which his son was permitted to use; that he had frequently used it prior to the accident in question; that he used it in a reckless maimer when plaintiff was injured, and had done so on other occasions; and that defendant, though informed of such reckless acts on the part of his son, permuted him to continue in such course of conduct.</p>