130 Minn. 412 | Minn. | 1915
Defendant is a real estate dealer residing and doing business in tbe city of Minneapolis. He owns and uses in connection with sueb business and for his personal convenience an automobile, and employs a chauffeur to operate tbe same. Plaintiff was riding bis bicycle upon one of tbe streets of Minneapolis and was negligently and carelessly run down and injured by defendant’s car, driven by bis chauffeur. He brought this action to recover for tbe injuries so received, on tbe theory and claim that defendant was responsible for tbe conduct of tbe chauffeur, and liable for bis negligence while operating tbe automobile. Plaintiff bad a verdict and defendant appealed from an order denying bis alternative motion for judgment or a new trial.
There is no controversy about tbe facts and it stands admitted that defendant owned tbe automobile, that it was operated by bis chauffeur, and that plaintiff was injured through tbe latter’s negligence. It further appears that tbe chauffeur was in tbe employ of defendant and was clothed with authority to use tbe automobile in connection with defendant’s business, and in driving members of bis family about tbe city, but be was expressly forbidden to use tbe same for bis, tbe chauffeur’s, personal affairs, and was authorized to use it in furtherance of defendant’s business only when expressly so authorized by defendant. There is no evidence in tbe record to sustain tbe claim that tbe chauffeur was in tbe habit of taking and using tbe automobile outside of tbe business of defendant, with tbe knowledge and consent of defendant or otherwise. On tbe day of tbe injury to plaintiff tbe chauffeur bad taken defendant to bis home in tbe car, and was then directed by defendant to go 'to bis own home and after supper to return to defendant’s residence and take defendant and members of bis family to tbe theater. Tbe chauffeur did not comply with these directions. Instead of proceeding directly to bis own home be drove past bis residence and some eight or ten blocks beyond on a mission of bis own, and to inform a friend that be could not keep an engagement with him that evening. He was some eight blocks beyond bis own home when tbe accident in question occurred. These facts are all undisputed.
Tbe relation between tbe owner of an automobile and tbe person
The rule applies to the case at bar. Plaintiff does not otherwise contend, though he does claim that the question whether the chauffeur of defendant at the time of the injury was engaged in the line of his employment was properly submitted to the jury. In this we do not concur. It is clear from the facts stated, which are not in dispute, that the chauffeur was not engaged in the work of his employment at the time the injury was inflicted upon plaintiff. He had departed from his service for defendant and was engaged in furthering his own interests and in pursuance of his own affairs, and this contrary to the directions of defendant. This view of the case is supported by numerous recent decisions of other courts. In Colwell v. Aetna Pottle & Stopper Co. 33 R. I. 531, 82 Atl. 388, it appeared
We are not called upon in the ease at bar to consider the effect of a failure of a servant in the operation of his master’s automobile to follow the usual ¿nd customary routes of travel. Such is not the situation here presented. Here the servant had wholly departed from his employment, and proceeded heyond his destination upon an errand of his own. In the absence of some evidence that the chauf
It is not a case for final judgment and a new trial will be ordered.
Order reversed.