Thompson v. Anderson Electric Car Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Thompson v. Anderson Electric Car Co.

181 A.D. 894

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D. 894 (Thompson v. Anderson Electric Car Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. Anderson Electric Car Co., 181 A.D. 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Although defendant stood in the position of owner of this motor car, which was run by one who had been in defendant’s employ during working hours, such inference of responsible control has been met and overcome by proof that on this evening trip the car had been lent to Mr. Kretchmer for his private purpose to bring his mother home from a hospital. The [895]*895driver was, therefore, in Mr. Kretchmer’s personal service, and was not engaged in defendant’s business. This evidence was uncontradicted and disproved any presumption that defendant had custody, control or authority over the driver, at the time of the injury. Hence the judgment must fall. (Potts v. Pardee, 220 N. Y. 431; Farthing v. Strouse, 172 App. Div. 523.) The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, and the complaint is unanimously dismissed, with costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ.

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

Although defendant stood in the position of owner of this motor car, which was run by one who had been in defendant’s employ during working hours, such inference of responsible control has been met and overcome by proof that on this evening trip the car had been lent to Mr. Kretchmer for his private purpose to bring his mother home from a hospital. The [895]*895driver was, therefore, in Mr. Kretchmer’s personal service, and was not engaged in defendant’s business. This evidence was uncontradicted and disproved any presumption that defendant had custody, control or authority over the driver, at the time of the injury. Hence the judgment must fall. (Potts v. Pardee, 220 N. Y. 431; Farthing v. Strouse, 172 App. Div. 523.) The judgment and order are, therefore, reversed, and the complaint is unanimously dismissed, with costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D. 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-anderson-electric-car-co-nyappdiv-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack