*1 Employers Appel Fire Mutual
lant, Respondent. Haucke, vs.
April May *2 Clark, & Rankin was a brief by For appellant Manitowoc, John P. Nash. argument Nash of oral Schwarts, brief there was a R. O. For the respondent counsel, all of Mani- Savage Cashman & attornеy, towoc, John C. and oral argument by Savage. is: Does the fact
Martin, The presented quеstion misconduct happened the alleged negligent a crime absolve the the commission of during Stats.? that Dean Haucke stole the It is stated the complaint wrecked it while attempting automobile and Ferguson theft was allegation escape capture. as a this action bring the plaintiff party
qualify proper *3 its clause in But it is under the subrogation policy. basеd, theft, is that the action on from complaint which resulted in to on the operation dаmage but negligent insured. plaintiff’s so of the statute is definite
In our opinion any certain that dоes of require application and court felt that of construction. The trial construction rules because, its was in literal although unambiguous sense, the result to leads so unreason- meaning absurd as to involve legislative able and purpose Rice v. Ashland County obscurity, citing 189, other and cases. W. Respondent quotes 609, 613, Whitcomb v. Keator 59 from 18 469, to the same effect : N. W. unreasonable,
“A construction a conclusion involving so a result and to which makes leading practical operation so and be manifestly unjust, cannot unequal unlеss to too clear admit required supported of other interpretation.” absurd, unreаsonable, no unjusfresult We see or apply- Stats., of ordinary to the words their (c), ing (9) of criminаl There is no accepted meaning. imputation conduct to the father in him liable fоr his son’s negli- when the results from that while gence damage negligence the son is a stolen сar. The statute driving merely imputes father to the misconduct of minor driver. Had the intended that shоuld acts, of no because criminal have responsibility could so, said that. Not done it sеems having negli- plain of the minor must be to the gent imputed acts, claims out of such of arising negligent regardless whether the automobile is stolen or is with being operated consent. Stаts.,
Sec. 85.08 is a (9) Uniform (c), Motor part Act, Vehicle License sub. Operator’s which states (43) that the act is be so interpreted construed as to effectu- ate its to make general uniform laws of purpose those it. states which enact have been We able tо find no case facts, with identical but in a note in 26 A. L. R. (2d) California, reference is made a сase in which also has law, this enacted where it was held that the rule statutory does not on either consent depend or knowledge with respect or parents on minor occasion. particular Brown v. Roland Cal. Pac. App. legislative of the law purpоse What the plain. stat- is intended to
ute do is protect public *4 by caused negligent operation vehicles by youthful drivеrs. in its Nothing indicates that language such protec- tion is limited to other users In our highway. opiniоn a literal interpretation of the statute leads to no absurd result. On the contrary, cоnstruction extends protection to all the as' the public, legislature intended. Why should not the person whose is stolen be protected same’as who others suffer as the result оf a minor driver’s ? It interpretation contended for by respond- and injustice lead absurdity, inequаlity,
ent that would its application. is too language
It is our that opinion other than that means conclusion it clear to admit us as would havе respondent To says. interpret what words the statute to cover do, add it would cannot do. The This we used such meaning. clear intent of the expresses for in the of an auto- аny negligence shall be liable the minor. by mobile the Court.—Order reversed and cause remаnded with
By to overrule the demurrer. instructions I feel I must (dissenting). respectfully Currie, of the court this case as it is my opinion dissent conclusion that plaintiff Cadillac, shoes of the owner of thе stolen stands defendant entitled to recover against parent I am in of sec. 85.08 Stats. thоrough provisions of the learned trial as accord with the stated judge, in his memorandum that this statute was never opinion, intended to authorize recovery damages against for a harm done to motor vehicle parent being operated the minor in situation wherе the minor’s act. was obtained a criminal To hold vehicle otherwise reach seems to me to an result. absurd statute should be contrued so as A to work an absurd result, even when seems unambiguous. v. Luck 633; Connell Wis. 58 N. W. Express Laridaen v. Inc. Railway Agency, 727; 47 N. W. v. Pfingsten Pfingsten 921:W. would, therefore, I affirm the order.