146 P. 140 | Or. | 1915
delivered the opinion of the court.
Plaintiff submits two assignments of error, for which his learned counsel earnestly contend: First, it is insisted that there was sufficient competent testimony to support the verdict; and, second, that the court exceeded its powers in entering a judgment of dismissal as to defendants Phillip and Cecelia Eippen.
The general rule at common law is that a parent is not liable in damages for the independent negligent act of his minor child, merely by reason of that relation. Judg’e Cooley, in his work on Torts, declares the settled doctrine thus:
“A father is not liable, merely because of the relation, for the torts of his child, whether the same are negligent or willful. He is liable only on the same grounds that he would be liable for the wrong of any other person, as that he directed or ratified the act, or took the benefit of it, or that the child was at the time acting as his servant”: 1 Cooley on Torts (3 ed.), 180.
The case of Palm v. Ivorson, 117 Ill. App. 535, is a case which aptly illustrates what we regard as a correct application of the doctrine, and from it we quote:
“A father is not liable for the tort of his infant child upon the ground alone that he is the father. A person who negligently places in the hands of, or authorizes the use by another person of, a dangerous instrument or article under such circumstances that he has reason to know that it is likely to produce injury, is liable for the natural and probable consequences of his act, to any person injured who is not himself at fault. ’ ’
Again, in the same opinion we read:
“Such danger cannot be reasonably anticipated from permitting a boy 12 years old to have and use a gun when he is experienced in the use of guns, is acquainted with their construction and the proper mode of carry*27 ing, handling and discharging them, and has been careful in their use. ’ ’
The court in the case cited held that the trial court should have directed a verdict.
In the case at bar the defendant Cecil Rippen was at least 16 years old, was familiar with the use of firearms, and had owned and used a rifle at the age of 9 years. We are of the opinion that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the adult defendants.
The judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.