Dorman v. Koontz

⁵³⁶ Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. TVliile the plaintiff was driving her automobile along a public highway in Allegany County, the car was struck by the defendant’s motor truck, which was making a backward movement into the road from an area in front of a garage. At the trial of this suit fox personal injuries to the plaintiff, and for damage to her automobile caused by the collision, the principal question was whether the evidence had a legally sufficient tendency to prove that the operator of the truck at the time of the accident was acting as the defendant’s agent or employee. It is not disputed that there was legally adequate evidence of the truck driver’s negligence.

The appeal .is from a judgment for the plaintiff on the verdict of a jury. The defendant had taken his truck to Nelson’s Garage for repairs to its steering mechanism. It was requested by the defendant that the repairs be made the following day. Mr. Nelson said that he could not do the work within the time specified, but referred the defendant to a man by the name of Bridges, who was then at the garage engaged in some work of his own with Nelson’s permission.

Bridges, who was not connected with the garage, but whose occupation is digging and hauling coal, though he has had some experience as an automobile mechanic, testified that he agreed to make. the repairs on the following, day with the defendant’s assistance, and that the accident happened while he was examining the truck after the defendant had described to him the trouble with the steering gear. According to his testimony the defendant said to him, “Gome get in the truck and ride up with me to the mine and if there was any part needed he would get it in Cumberland,” but the witness said “he couldn’t do that because he didn’t have time.” Declarations attributed to the defendant by the plaintiff’s witnesses, respectively, were as follows: That “he told Bridges to go out and look at the truck and see if he could fix it the next day, there,” that “something was wrong with the clutch to the truck and he went down to Swede Nelson’s to get the car fixed there and Swede said he would be busy and couldn’t fix it, but maybe Bridges could fix it,” and he (the defend ⁵³⁷ ant) “told Bridges to go ont and see if he could find out what was wrong.” There was testimony that Bridges stated in the defendant’s presence, at a hearing in the people’s court, that when he agreed to make the repairs to the truck he asked the defendant, “What’s wrong?” And-the defendant said: “I don’t know exactly, something is wrong with the clutch. Suppose you go- out and look what is wrong and maybe you can tell me.” That “he was told to' go out and see if he could fix it — find out what was wrong with the truck and fix it.” Evidence in the record tends to prove that Bridges was intoxicated when the accident occurred. From the testimony in the case it cbuld be rationally in-fen-ed that Bridges, the operator of the truck, at the time of the collision was acting in pursuance of instructions from the defendant to ascertain the cause of the steering trouble which was to be remedied.

Some experimental movement of the truck could be anticipated as incidental to that duty. If the truck was in fact being maneuvered for that purpose by an intoxicated man at the defendant’s instance, the responsibility of the defendant for the negligence of the operator could not well be doubted. It was denied by the defendant that he made the declarations which we have quoted from the testimony of witnesses for the plaintiff, and there was a dispute as to the intoxication of Bridges; but it was for the jury to decide the questions of fact thus raised. It is not necessary to determine the nature of the legal relation between the defendant and Bridges which, according to the plaintiff’s proof, existed at the time of the