Ludberg v. Barghoorn

Citations

• 73 Wash. 476
• 131 P. 1165
• 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1623

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Injury to Third Persons — Scope oe Employment — Evidence—Sueeiciency. In an action for injuries sustained hy a pedestrian, struck by defendant’s automobile, the evidence establishes beyond controversy that defendant’s servant was not acting within the scope of his employment, but had borrowed the automobile for an errand for his father, where it was uncontradicted that defendant’s wife let the servant take the car on the request of his father to bring a doctor, and that after returning the doctor to his apartments, the servant took a lady friend to catch a street car, and while returning from that trip ran over the plaintiff; notwithstanding the testimony of two witnesses to a conversation held with them by the defendant, wherein.the defendant, in investigating the accident, according to one of the witnesses, stated that his boy had “fetched a friend home on his way back” and, according to the other witness, stated “I sent the boy up to Ninth and Sherman streets with this friend of mine..” •</p> <p>Same- — Injury to Third Person — Liability—Acts Outside Scope oe Employment. The owner of an automobile is not liable to one who was run over by his servant while returning, from a personal errand for the servant’s father, to whom defendant’s wife had given permission to use th’e machine; since he was acting outside the scope of his employment.</p> <p>Same — Scope oe Employment — Direction oe Verdict. In an action for injuries sustained when plaintiff was run over by defendant’s automobile, driven by his servant, it is the duty of the court, under Rem. & Bal. Code, § 340, to direct judgment for the plaintiff, where it is shown conclusively without substantial dispute that the automobile was not being used upon defendant’s business but upon the business of another.</p>