Lashbrook v. Patten

62 Ky. 316, 1 Duv. 316, 1864 Ky. LEXIS 76
Court of Appeals of Kentucky·Decided February 10, 1864·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

JUDGE WILLIAMS

delivered the opinion op the court :

Appellant’s minor son, whilst di’iving his two sistei's to a “ picnic,” in his fathex-’s carriage, drawn by his father’s horses, and with his father’s approbation, all being membei’s of his father’s family, through negligence, ran against appellee’s carriage, causing his hox’se to frighten and run, turn over and break his carriage; and throw out his daughter. To recover for which this suit was brought, and submitted to the decision of the court, without the intervention of a jury. The court gave the plaintiff judgment for $55, which appellant desires revised.

The son must be regai’ded as in the father’s employment, dischai’ging a duty usually performed by a slave, and therefore must, for the purposes of this suit, be regarded as his father’s servant. The doctrine that masters ai’e responsible for the injui'ies arising from the carelessness of their servants whilst in the master’s employment and the discharge of their duties, has been so long recognized and’acted on, that we scarcely deem it necessary to elabox’ate the reasons or recite authorities. ' v‘

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Lashbrook v. Patten, 62 Ky. 316, 1 Duv. 316, 1864 Ky. LEXIS 76 (Ky. Ct. App. 1864).

62 Ky. 316 (Lashbrook v. Patten) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Grimes v. Hettinger
566 S.W.2d 769 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1978)
Steele v. Age's Administratrix
26 S.W.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
Broadstreet v. Hall
80 N.E. 145 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1907)