Bastien v. Ford Motor Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Bastien v. Ford Motor Co.

189 Ill. App. 367, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 345

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 9, 1914

DocketGen. No. 19,758

StatusPublished

This text of 189 Ill. App. 367 (Bastien v. Ford Motor Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bastien v. Ford Motor Co., 189 Ill. App. 367, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 345 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Automobiles and garages, § 2*—when negligence of driver of automobile not imputable to his employer. Where a person took his automobile to an automobile company to have a “rattle” in the car located and an employee of the company got in the car and rode with the owner and later, at the suggestion of the owner, the employee drove the machine until it collided with a street car and the owner was injured, held that the negligence of the employee, if any, in driving the car could not be imputed to the automobile company so as to make it liable to the owner for his injuries, it appearing that the owner was directing the employee where to drive the machine, that the company had no authority to control the employee in driving it and that the company had not assumed the service of driving ór operating it. 2. Negligence, § 104*—rule as to imputed negligence. In order that the negligence of one person may be imputed to another, they must stand in such relation of privity that the maxim qui fadt per alium, fadt per se directly applies.

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

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of the Decision. 1. Automobiles and garages, § 2*—when negligence of driver of automobile not imputable to his employer. Where a person took his automobile to an automobile company to have a “rattle” in the car located and an employee of the company got in the car and rode with the owner and later, at the suggestion of the owner, the employee drove the machine until it collided with a street car and the owner was injured, held that the negligence of the employee, if any, in driving the car could not be imputed to the automobile company so as to make it liable to the owner for his injuries, it appearing that the owner was directing the employee where to drive the machine, that the company had no authority to control the employee in driving it and that the company had not assumed the service of driving ór operating it. 2. Negligence, § 104*—rule as to imputed negligence. In order that the negligence of one person may be imputed to another, they must stand in such relation of privity that the maxim qui fadt per alium, fadt per se directly applies.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Ill. App. 367, 1914 Ill. App. LEXIS 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bastien-v-ford-motor-co-illappct-1914.