Aurend v. Schroeder, Admr.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Aurend v. Schroeder, Admr.

165 N.E. 591, 32 Ohio App. 35, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 147, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 561

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 6, 1928

Docket1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 N.E. 591 (Aurend v. Schroeder, Admr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aurend v. Schroeder, Admr., 165 N.E. 591, 32 Ohio App. 35, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 147, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OP COURT.

' The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

LLOYD, J.

In our opinion Aurend, as the bailee of the automobile, bore the same relation thereto as if he had been the owner thereof. There is no evidence that he rented the automobile for Kaueher or that he, in any way, surrendered the control thereof incident to such ownership. On the contrary, he invited or permitted his friend to ride with him and to drive the automobile.

This is not a case of a person borrowing an automobile for purposes of his own and thereafter inviting the owner thereof to accompany him as a passenger or guest, nor a case where a member of the owner’s family, with permission of the owner, uses the latter’s car for his own pleasure or upon his own business,, the owner accompanying him but having no control over the automobile, its operation or use. The mere fact that Aurend could not operate an automobile made it none the less his automobile for the time being. He had the power to direct Kaueher where to go or to stop the car, had he so desired.

If, under the facts in evidence, a person could relieve himself of responsibility for injuries resulting from the negligence of one selected or permitted by him to drive his automobile, then the easiest way for one desiring to enjoy an aimless pleasure ride, to avoid liability for the possible negligent operation of his automobile, would be, always, on such occasions, to permit some person competent to drive it, but financially irresponsible, to operate it for him.

Finding that the trial court did not err in the respect charged, the judgment is affirmed.

(Richards and Williams, JJ., concur.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OP COURT.

' The following is taken, verbatim, from the opinion.

LLOYD, J.

In our opinion Aurend, as the bailee of the automobile, bore the same relation thereto as if he had been the owner thereof. There is no evidence that he rented the automobile for Kaueher or that he, in any way, surrendered the control thereof incident to such ownership. On the contrary, he invited or permitted his friend to ride with him and to drive the automobile.

This is not a case of a person borrowing an automobile for purposes of his own and thereafter inviting the owner thereof to accompany him as a passenger or guest, nor a case where a member of the owner’s family, with permission of the owner, uses the latter’s car for his own pleasure or upon his own business,, the owner accompanying him but having no control over the automobile, its operation or use. The mere fact that Aurend could not operate an automobile made it none the less his automobile for the time being. He had the power to direct Kaueher where to go or to stop the car, had he so desired.

If, under the facts in evidence, a person could relieve himself of responsibility for injuries resulting from the negligence of one selected or permitted by him to drive his automobile, then the easiest way for one desiring to enjoy an aimless pleasure ride, to avoid liability for the possible negligent operation of his automobile, would be, always, on such occasions, to permit some person competent to drive it, but financially irresponsible, to operate it for him.

Finding that the trial court did not err in the respect charged, the judgment is affirmed.

(Richards and Williams, JJ., concur.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 N.E. 591, 32 Ohio App. 35, 6 Ohio Law. Abs. 147, 1928 Ohio App. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aurend-v-schroeder-admr-ohioctapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack