Hynes v. Wilson

³⁶¹ Parke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The six exceptions to the court’s rulings on the evidence, and the sevedíh excépti'on to its action on the prayers, all present the question of whether the evidence w.as legally sufficient to show that the son of the appellant Was using her automobile as her agent, at the time of the - accident which caused 'the injury for whidh the appellee recovered against both the appellant and her son. The automobile was owned by the. .appellant, and it was driven by her son when the injnry .to the appellee was inflicted through his negligence. The mlolther was not in the automobile when the appellee was struck, and was in no way responsible to her in damages, unless there existed a legal relation with her son of principal and agent. 'The testimony on her part is that the son’s use of the automobile was wholly a matter of his own pleasure and for his own purpose-, and, if there was nothing to the contrary in the ease, the appellee should not have been p'ermitted to recover -against the appellant.

Myers v. Shipley, 140 Md. 380 . There were, however, certain admissions of the -appellant which Were introduced in evidence by the appellee, that were sufficient, in the opinion of the lower court, mot only to- he given in .evidence hut to dairy the ease to (the jury for its determination. The rulings on these admissions are the grounds of this appeal. The son was a painter, (thirty-five years old* unmarried, and lived with his mother.

She could not drive the automobile, and whenever" she Itook a ride the automobile was driven by her son, who had her full permission to use i-t as he liked. After proving -the accident, the ownership of the automobile, that the son was its negligent operator at the ' time of the accident, and thalt there were two other men with him, the appellee offered certain admissions <of the appellant. The materiality -and relevancy of these admission-si, in the first place, and their legal sufficiency to* east legal responsibility on the appellant, in the second place, are hut divisions of the same question, and, therefore', the exceptions may all be' eonsidered'tO'gether. ³⁶² The first admission was .at (the hospital on a vi-sit to the alppellele by -the appellant and her son, who Wa's present and heard this conversation, which was testified to- by the appellee, who- said: “She came in. She said, ‘Is this Mrs. Wilson?’ I said, ‘Yes, ma’am.’ It was about'8.15 -at night.

She said, ‘Well, this is my boy that run you down.’ I said, ‘Yes, ma’am.’ 'She said, ‘I am awfully sorry -that this happened.’ I -said, ‘Well, I kniow I am; it is awful suffering for me, -and I lowered ftih-e cover and showed her the position and condition of my leg as it lay in the east. She said to- me, she said, ‘It is awful.’ iShe said, ‘He is a good boy.’ I said, ‘I have no- reason to doubt that he is-, the place he was at.’ •She Said-,/Oh, the reason he was there-,’ she said, ‘he doesn’t drink, but he had an .appointment with a man to go- with Mm to -sell the car. If is my -oar, but I could not run it, and he Was out with this- man -trying, to sell this ear. That is the reason that Roy Was there, but he i-s a good boy -and don’t drink.’ And he also made -the same statement.” Later on in response -to the inquiry, whether the son had taken part in the conversation, the appellee stated, “He -only s-aid that he was sorry that it happened, and1 the realson he was there is that he was trying to- sell the car for his mother.” The second admission was in January, -after the -appellee had been taken home.

The appellant was- alone, and said, according’ to