117 So. 531 | Miss. | 1928
This suit was brought against the husband, seeking to hold him liable for the alleged negligent operation of the automobile by his wife, and the injuries occasioned the appellee thereby.
We think the facts in this case were sufficient to cause the case to be submitted to the jury in so far as the negligence of Mrs. Cowart was concerned. The appellant, however, strenuously insists that he should not be held liable for the negligence of his wife, arguing that no agency relationship, either express or implied, has been shown to exist between himself and his wife, referring to the common-law liability of the husband for the torts of his wife as related to our statute removing, to some extent, the disability of the coverture of the wife.
Pretermitting a decision of the question of the agency relationship alleged to exist between the appellant and his wife, because such decision is not necessary for the determination of this question, we are yet of the opinion that the appellant is liable for the negligent operation of the automobile on the occasion in question.
The undisputed testimony in this case shows that the appellant and his wife owned the car jointly, each of them having paid one-half of the cost thereof, and each of them contributing, equally, to its upkeep and maintenance. The car was used for their mutual entertainment and pleasure, and on the occasion was being driven by them to Mobile on a pleasure trip for the mutual enjoyment and entertainment of both the appellant and his wife. At the time of the accident, the appellant was in the car sitting beside his wife, saw that she was driving the car in a negligent manner, and heard the remonstrances of the other occupants of the car. Under these circumstances, both the appellant and his wife became liable for injuries occasioned on account of the negligence *224 of one of them. The negligence of the one is imputed to the other.
The case of Seiden v. Reimer,
"It was shown that the defendants were engaged in the joint enterprise for which the car was maintained and was being operated by one of the joint owners, while the other was present and participating therein."
In the case of Goodman v. Wilson,
In the case of Lucey v. Hope,
"They were not only equally interested in the automobile, but also in the object and purpose of the trip as well as the manner in which it should be conducted, the route of travel which should be chosen, and the places where they would halt for rest or refreshments. We think that under these conditions William H. and Charles H. Hope were, at the time of the accident, engaged in a common enterprise or purpose, and that the negligence of the one driving is imputable to the other, under the authorities to some of which we have referred."
From these views, it follows that no error was committed by the trial court. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.