Raub v. Donn

Citations

• 254 Pa. 203
• 98 A. 861
• 1916 Pa. LEXIS 705

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Master and servant — Automobiles—Defendant’s son as chauffeur — Scope of authority — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. In an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by a pedestrian in consequence of being run over by defendant’s automobile while being operated by defendant’s son, the' question whether the son was acting within the scope of his duties as his father’s employee at the time of the accident was for the jury and a verdict for the plaintiff will be sustained, where it appeared that the defendant had told a mechanic that he wished the car repaired before he returned from a trip he was about to take, that on the evening of the accident, during defendant’s absence, the mechanic went to defendant’s garage and after making certain repairs took the car out on a testing tour with defendant’s son, that he then turned the car over to the son with directions to take it back to the garage, that the son pursued a direct route home, and through his negligent driving the accident occurred; and where it further appeared that the son was in his father’s employ and had been in the habit of operating the car.</p> <p>2. In such case where plaintiff introduced evidence to the effect that the son had a reputation for reckless driving and that the defendant was aware of' such fact, the court did not err in submitting such question to the jury and in charging that it was the duty of a man to see that his automobile was not run by a careless or reckless person, but by a skillful and competent operator. .</p>