Summary
In Iles v. Palermino, 127 Me. 226, 142 A. 867 (1928), we noted that ownership was vested in two parties even though the vehicle was registered in the name of only one party.
Summary of this case from Bourque v. Dairyland Insurance CompanyOpinion
Opinion July 18, 1928.
MOTOR VEHICLES. LIABILITY OF OWNER. AGENCY.
In order to recover for damages sustained in an automobile collision where the defendant is not driving nor a passenger in the car, the plaintiff must show that the person driving the car at the time of the accident was the servant or agent of the defendant and in the performance of duties arising from such relationship.
In the case at bar although the car was registered in the name of the defendant, and he was a part owner thereof, the evidence failed to show any relationship of servant or agent between the defendant and the driver of the car at the time of the accident.
On motion by defendant for new trial. An action to recover damages done to the plaintiff's automobile as a result of a collision with an automobile partly owned by defendant, registered in his name and operated by his daughter.
Trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for Four Hundred and Twenty-eight Dollars. After verdict the defendant filed a motion for new trial on the usual grounds.
Motion granted.
The case sufficiently appears in the opinion.
Benjamin L. Berman, David V. Berman, Jacob H. Berman, and Edward J. Berman, for plaintiff.
Albert Beliveau, for defendant.
SITTING: WILSON, C. J., PHILBROOK, DUNN, DEASY, BARNES, PATTANGALL, JJ.
This is an action to recover compensation for damages sustained by reason of an automobile collision. Defendant was not in nor driving the car which caused the damage. The plaintiff was awarded a verdict and the case is before us upon defendant's motion to have that verdict set aside. The defendant relies upon the failure of the plaintiff to prove that the driver of the car was the servant or agent of the defendant when driving the same.
The car in question was registered in the name of the defendant, but as to its ownership the uncontradicted evidence shows that it was owned jointly by the defendant and the husband of the driver, the latter being the married daughter of the defendant, who, with her husband and children, lived in a rent other than that in which the defendant lived, and formed no part of the defendant's household. When the car was bought it was with the distinct understanding that either owner might use the car at his pleasure. Each had a key to the garage in which the car was housed.
On the day of the accident the married daughter was on her way to attend a wedding, and some members of the defendant's family were accompanying her with the same intent. The record falls short of establishing any relationship of servant or agent between the defendant and the driver of the car at the time of the accident. The verdict is clearly wrong and the mandate must be
Motion granted.