So also is the question whether Mr. and Mrs. Lockerman can be held liable if plaintiffs should fail to prove actual control of Simon by Richard, but succeed in establishing only the retention by Richard of the right to control Simon. Eskridge v. Ruth, 1953, 9 Terry 439, 48 Del. 439, 105 A.2d 785 and Roach v. Parker, 1954, 9 Terry 519, 48 Del. 519, 107 A.2d 798, relied upon by defendants, are not inconsistent with the views expressed herein. Neither involved an interpretation of § 6105(a) or § 6106, the minority problem, or actual direction and control over the commission of the acts of negligence.

Consequently, in the light of these conclusions a discussion of the driver's negligence would be irrelevant. Farley v. Wilmington N. Electric Ry., 3 Pennewill 581, 19 Del. 581, 52 A. 543, 544 (of first impression); also Campbell v. Walker, 2 Boyce, 41, 25 Del. 41, 78 A. 601, 604; Island Express, Inc., v. Frederick, 5 W.W.Harr. 569, 35 Del. 569, 171 A. 181, 186; Bennett v. Barber, 7 Terry 132, 46 Del. 132, 79 A.2d 363, 364; Eskridge v. Ruth, 9 Terry 439, 105 A.2d 785, 786, limited in Roach v. Parker, 9 Terry 519, 107 A.2d 798. See Stevenson, Law of Negligence in the Atlantic States 1090-1091, 1108.

The rule is clear in this State, and elsewhere, that in order for the negligence of the driver to be imputed to the occupant, the latter must exercise some control over the driver in the operation of the vehicle. Roach v. Parker, 9 Terry 519, 107 A.2d 798. See 4 Blashfield Cyclopedia of Law Automobile and Practice, § 2493, p. 670; 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 168(b), p. 810.

* * *" In Roach v. Parker, 9 Terry 519, 48 Del. 519, 107 A.2d 798, the husband was driving the car of the wife who was a passenger at the time of the wreck. The court made a point of saying that there was no evidence of the wife's ability or practice as to driving, nor evidence that she asked the husband to drive on the occasion, but solely the testimony that the wife and sister were in the car with the husband as they took the sister back to her home after she had spent an evening with them.

On the other hand, a seeming minority of the cases take the position that, where an owner is an occupant of his automobile which is being driven by another, the negligence of the driver is not imputable to the owner unless it is shown that the operator is acting as the agent or servant of the owner or that the owner is in control of the car and is directing its operation. See Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co., Inc. (1943), 215 Minn. 394, 10 N.W.2d 406, 147 A.L.R., 945 (husband and wife co-owners, husband driving car); Petersen v. Schneider (1951), 154 Neb. 303, 47 N.W.2d 863 (companion driving owner's car); Painter v. Lingon (1952), 193 Va. 840, 71 S.E.2d 355 (husband driving wife's car); Roach v. Parker (1954, Del. Sup.), 107 A.2d 798 (limited to a situation where a husband is driving wife's car). In the instant case the evidence is meager as to the exact circumstances under which Ross was driving plaintiff's car at the time of the collision.

Am. Compl. ¶ 3. Roach v. Parker, 107 A.2d 798, 799 (Del. Super. 1954); see also Scott v. Bey, 1986 WL 5865, at *2 (Del. Super.

Indeed, the trend of later cases in other States is inclined toward treating the negligence of the driver not as a question of law barring an action against negligent third parties but as a question of fact for the jury (see, e.g., Johnson v. Los Angeles-Seattle Motor Express, 222 Or. 377; Capital Tr. Co. v. Simpson, 235 F.2d 525; Menzigian v. LaRiviere, 334 Mass. 610; Ross v. Burgan, 163 Ohio St. 211; Fox v. Kaminsky, 239 Wis. 559; Harper v. Harper, 225 N.C. 260). In some States the question of negligence of an owner occupant is determined simply by recourse to the usual rules applicable to passengers (e.g. Williams v. Knapp, 248 Md. 506 [1968]; Weber v. Stokely-Van Camp, 274 Minn. 482 [1966]; Roach v. Parker, 48 Del. 519 [1954]; Bartek v. Glasers Provisions Co., 160 Neb. 794 [1955]). In my opinion, Ullery v. National Car Rental System ( 28 A.D.2d 1111, revd. 23 N.Y.2d 677) represents this general trend of limiting the rule of Gochee v. Wagner ( supra) to its facts.