Kunkle v. Thompson

Citations

• 67 Pa. Super. 37
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 336

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles — Principal and agent — Parent and child.</p> <p>A father cannot be held liable for the negligent act of his son nineteen years of age, in driving alone an automobile owned by the father, unless it is shown that the son was the agent of the father, engaged in furtherance of the father’s business or pleasure, or in and about a matter in which he had an interest.</p> <p>Such agency is not established where the evidence in effect is that the son was a competent driver, that he was permitted by his father to drive the car whenever he desired, and if the members of the family chose to enjoy the car, the son drove it for them; that the son had been educated at a business college; had had employment with various persons; that he had received with hisj father’s consent the wages he earned, and out of them educated and partially clothed himself; that on the day of the accident, desiring to go to a neighboring town, in response to a letter offering him a position, he requested his father to permit him to take the car for the journey, first advising him of the purpose of his visit, that the father consented, and that the accident occurred while the son was returning home.</p> <p>The paternal interest which the father had in his son’s welfare is not to be confused with a business interest, which would make the father liable.</p>