Miller v. Shegogue

Per Curiam. The only question here involved is one of agency. The appellant instituted an action against the appellee for personal injuries allegedly suffered as a result of an automobile, in which the appellant was a passenger, being driven off the highway, at about 2 A. M. in the morning, by a garageman with whom it had been left for repairs. The son of the appellee had purchased the automobile, and, as the money to pay for it had to be borrowed and the son was under age, it was titled in the appellee’s name.

The appellee did not use the car for his own purposes at all. It was left by appellee’s son, from one to three weeks prior to the accident, with Bob’s Auto Service, Inc., for repairs, the son giving his permission to the repairman to “drive it to test it.” Robert Kerr, either the proprietor of Bob’s Auto Service, Inc., or its employee (the briefs and record extract do not make his relationship with the company definite or clear) testified he was in the process of driving “one of the employees” home from work, and, after stopping for a “sociable beer and sandwich” the accident occurred. He was also taking the automobile to his home because he did not want it to sit outside and he wanted to “test it out.” The trial court granted the appellee’s motion for a directed verdict in his favor on the ground that there had been no