From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Biedenbach v. Teague

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 14, 1960
166 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960)

Summary

following Restatement (Second) of Agency § 225

Summary of this case from Camarota v. Mayfair Organization

Opinion

November 16, 1960.

December 14, 1960.

Agency — Negligence — Automobiles — Car owned by defendant's father — Authority of minor son's friend to drive car — Evidence.

In a trespass case, in which it appeared that at the time of the accident in which the death of plaintiffs' decedent happened the automobile in which decedent was a passenger, owned by the father of defendant, K, and given by the father to defendant for his own use, was being operated by defendant T; that defendants, each seventeen years old, and decedent, sixteen years old, and a girl who was decedent's date, drove to a cottage near a village in search of two girl friends of defendants; that the car was stopped approximately five hundred feet from the cottage, defendants walked to the cottage and talked to the girls while the others remained in the car, and then defendant T left the cottage unaccompanied by defendant K, proceeded to the car, drove it past the cottage, out on the highway, in order to turn the car and bring it back to the cottage, when the accident occurred, causing the fatal injuries to decedent; that K's father permitted his son to operate the car but did not allow anyone else to do so, as T, who did not have a driver's license, knew; that T had been operating the car on previous occasions, with K's knowledge and consent, and on the evening in question had driven the automobile for a short distance; that K testified that he did not tell T to bring the car up and when T left to do so K told him to wait, but T testified that he did not hear K say this; and that the court below held that the question of T's agency for K was for the jury; it was Held that the order of the court below refusing K's motion for a new trial and directing that judgment be entered upon the verdict for plaintiffs should be affirmed.

Before RHODES, P.J., GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS, and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

Appeals, Nos. 184 and 185, April T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, June T., 1960, Nos. 317 and 318, in case of Henry A. Biedenbach, administrator of estate of Thomas J. Biedenbach, deceased, et al. v. William LeRoy Teague, Jr. et al. Order affirmed.

Same case in court below: 22 Pa. D. C. 2d 588.

Trespass for personal injuries. Before GRAFF, P.J., specially presiding.

Compulsory nonsuit entered as to defendant D.A. Kroha; verdict for plaintiffs and against both defendants in the sum of $4,000 and judgment entered thereon. Additional defendant appealed.

Lee C. McCandless, for appellant.

John Murrin, with him Murrin and Murrin, for appellees.


Argued November 16, 1960.


The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge J. FRANK GRAFF, as reported in 22 Pa. D. C. 2d 588.


Summaries of

Biedenbach v. Teague

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Dec 14, 1960
166 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960)

following Restatement (Second) of Agency § 225

Summary of this case from Camarota v. Mayfair Organization
Case details for

Biedenbach v. Teague

Case Details

Full title:Biedenbach v. Teague (et al., Appellant)

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 14, 1960

Citations

166 A.2d 320 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960)
166 A.2d 320

Citing Cases

Wolgin v. Mickman et ux

Ritchey v. Mars, supra, 227 Pa. Super. at 37, 324 A.2d at 515, citing Sweitzer v. Evans, 360 Pa. 552, 63 A.2d…

Camarota v. Mayfair Organization

The law recognizes the possibility of an unpaid, or volunteer, master-servant relationship. Biedenbach v.…