Lloyd v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 107 Wash. 57
• 181 P. 29
• 6 A.L.R. 307
• 1919 Wash. LEXIS 742

Syllabus

<p>Negligence (22-1—24) — Imputed Negligence—Servants—Scope of Employment. In an action for injuries sustained at a railroad crossing through the concurrent negligence of the company and the driver of the car, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the driver, who was employed as a farm hand, was not acting in the course of his employment so that his contributory negligence would be imputable to his employer, where it appears that, although it was Sunday and he was taking a young lady for a ride, he stopped at the express office to procure an express package addressed to his employer, as he had done on other occasions without express direction to do so.</p> <p>Bailment (3) —Negligence (22-1—24)—Imputed Negligence— Servant or Bailee. Where a farm hand was, on Sunday, driving his employer’s automobile for his own pleasure, when it was struck at a railroad crossing, his relation was that of a bailee, and his own contributory negligence is not imputable to the owner and is no defense to an action against the company, although he was employed at “so much a month and had the use of the car.”</p> <p>Chadwick, C. J., dissents.</p>