Ewing v. Kates
J. B. Ewing v. Lewis Kates.
Opinion of the Court
Stact, C. J., after stating the case: It was said in Robertson v. Aldridge, 185 N. C., 292 , 116 S. E., 742 , that where a parent owns a car for the convenience and pleasure of his family, a minor child who is a member of the family, though using such car at the time for his own purposes with the parent’s consent and approval, will be regarded as representing the parent in such use, and the question of liability for negligent injury may be considered and determined upon that basis.
Clark v. Sweaney, 176 N. C., 529 , 97 S. E., 474 ;
S. c., 175 N. C., 280 , 95 S. E., 568 .
The trial court evidently gave the instruction, which constitutes one of the defendant’s exceptive assignments of error, upon this principle of law, and, under a certain state of facts, the instruction might not be objectionable. But there is neither allegation nor proof to bring the instant case within the “family purpose” doctrine.
Allen v. Garibaldi, 187 N. C., 798 , 123 S. E., 66 . Hence, we think the instruction, as given, must be held for error on authority of what was said in Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95 , 77 S. E., 1096 , and Bilyeu v. Beck, 178 N. C., 481 , 100 S. E., 891 .
New trial.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.