The appeal is by plaintiff from the judgments herein in favor of defendants Einаr A. Lund and Emmett Olson.
The action arose out of an automobile collision wherein plaintiff; the nine-year old.daughter of defendant Lund, was sevеrely injured. Large verdicts were rendered against Fox, who drove defеndant Olson’s car, and against Ehlers, the servant and driver of defendant Lund’s car, in which the little girl was riding when injured. The appeals of Fox and Ehlers were disрosed of in Lund v. Olson,
As to defendant Lund the court granted the motion made in his bеhalf for judgment on the pleadings when the trial opened. Plain
*516
tiff concedes it to be the law of this state that a parent is not liable, in damаges for torts committed against a minor child of such parent. Taubert v. Taubert,
Over plaintiff’s objection the court directed a verdict in favor of Olson when the parties rested. The evidenсe is without dispute that Olson occasionally employed Mrs. Fox to clean a cottage he owned in the southerly suburbs of Fairmont. She. had done so on six occasions at irregular intervals. Her regular work was in а restaurant, but she evidently had the privilege of earning a little on the sidе when opportunity offered. In going to the cottage and returning she usеd her husband’s car three times, and the other three times she was permittеd to take Olson’s. Olson was conducting a public garage and also a fuel business, the stock or yard of which was located on the railroad tracks a few blocks northeast of the garage. He used a Buiok car in going between the two places as occasion required.
On the day of the accident Olson telephoned Fox that he wished hеr to clean up the cottage. She came to the garage and told Olson her husband was using their car. Olson said she could take his, parkеd outside; but to bring it right back as he might want to use it. She drove out to the cottage, did a quick job, as Olson had requested, and returning drove the usual route tоward Olson’s place of business until she came to Webster street; then, having determined to go to her grandmother’s home for a vacuum cleaner to take to her own home, she turned east on Webster street and, within a block or so, after having deviated from the course to Olson’s gаrage, the collision took place.
The going for the vacuum cleaner was purely for a purpose of her own. Nothing had beеn said to Olson of her intention so to do.
*517
In fact it is rather to be regarded as contrary to his command; for he had told her that he was anxious to have the car back as soon as possible. There seems to be no conflict in the evidence as to the fact that Mrs. Fox was driving Olson’s car upon an errand personal to herself and at a plаce where she should not have been driving as a servant or agent of Olson when the collision occurred. That being so, the following cases justify the order of the learned trial court directing a verdict for Olson: Prоvo v. Conrad,
The undisputed evidence and the facts herein do not justify a jury in finding that Mrs. Fox was the servant or agent of Olson when the collision ocсurred, Avithin the rule of law held applicable in Mulvehill v. Bates,
The judgments are affirmed.