Taylor v. Wesley Freeman, Inc.

Collins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by Robert L. Taylor, appellant here, plaintiff below, from a judgment for costs rendered in favor of Wesley Freeman, Inc., and Harry R. Burgoon, appellees here, and defendants below, as a result of a suit filed in the Superior Court of Baltimore City for damages in the amount of $284.02 to the automobile of the appellant. The case was tried before the court sitting as a jury. The automobile of the appellant was parked in front of his home, 2810 Harford Road, Baltimore City, on April ⁴⁷⁶ 21, 1945.

About 11 p. m. that night he heard a crash, ran from his house and found his automobile on the pavement considerably damaged with a truck jammed into its rear. The owner of the truck was one of the appellees, Wesley Freeman, Inc. It was agreed that the appellant’s automobile had been damaged to the extent of $274. . The evidence shows that the defendant, Wesley Freeman, Inc., a plumbing and heating concern, operates seven days a week and renders twenty-four hour service to .its customers. The defendant,' Harry R. Burgoon, was employed as a plumber by that concern.

His hours- were irregular. Mr. Freeman, the president of the corporation testified that Burgoon was given a specific.job to do at Goetze’s plant, 2401 Sinclair Lane, Baltimore. The employer entrusted his truck to Burgoon on the date in question, a Saturday, and the following day, a Sunday, and sent him to do the job at the Sinclair Lane address. He was to work those two days on that job.

Burgoon testified that about 5.30 in the afternoon he left Goetze’s plant, where he had worked that day, and drove his truck in the direction of his home at 2716 Berwick Avenue and stopped the truck about one hundred feet south of the most direct route between Goetze’s plant and his home. After parking his truck he went into a restaurant where he says he ate some food and drank some beer and left the restaurant about eleven or eleven-thirty that evening. He said the truck, which could not be locked, because there were no locks on it or no door handles, was not where he parked'it. He looked around for it and walked down toward 25th Street and says that there had been an accident on the opposite side of the street there.

One of the cars involved in the accident was the truck- he had parked. He said he left the truck headed north and when he found it at the time of the accident it was headed south. He said he did not go over to the truck or make an effort to take it home because he did not have a chauffeur’s license and he was afraid he would get himself in trouble by going over to the truck and driving it away. ⁴⁷⁷ A police officer, Bernard J. Brooks, who investigated the accident, said that when he went to see the defendant, Burgoon, at his home, he did not want to say anything much about the accident. He would not say who was driving the truck.

The police officer testified that he admitted that he was in the truck, but on cross-examination the officer could not say that Burgoon made the statement that he was in the truck at the time of the accident. Bur-goon denied he told the officer he was in the truck. It is well settled law of this state that the driver of an automobile is presumed to be the employee, servant, or agent of the owner. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lord, 159 Md. 518, 526 , 151 A 400, and cases