Solomon v. Commonwealth Trust Co.

Citations

• 256 Pa. 55
• 100 A. 534
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 560

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Automobiles—“Joy ride” by chauffeur — Liability of master — Binding instructions for defendant.</p> <p>1. In order to hold the owner of an automobile liable for tbe negligence of bis chauffeur, it is incumbent upon tbe plaintiff to show by direct or circumstantial evidence, not only tbat the driver was tbe servant of the owner, but tbat he was on tbe owner’s errand or engaged in bis business at tbe time of tbe accident.</p> <p>2. In an action against tbe owner of an automobile to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s son occasioned by a collision between defendant’s automobile and a wagon on which deceased was riding, binding instructions should have been given for the defendant where it appeared that defendant’s chauffeur took the car to a garage for repairs, had the repairs made, and then, in company with an acquaintance left the repair establishment on a pleasure trip in a direction away from the owner’s garage, stopping at two or three places for drinks, and later on the trip home collided with the wagon in which decedent was seated.</p> <p>3. In such case if the chauffeur had started from the repair establishment with the intention of returning the car to tjie owner’s garage, even though he had deviated from the most direct route, the owner would have been liable.</p>