Weatherman v. Ramsey

Oonnok, J.

All the evidence at the trial of tbis action showed that the defendant was the owner of the automobile in which plaintiff’s intestate was riding at the time he was injured; that the defendant had loaned his automobile to the driver to go to a baseball game; and that plaintiff’s intestate was riding in the automobile at the time he was injured as the guest of the driver. There was no evidence tending to show that the driver of the automobile was the agent of the defendant, or that he was transporting plaintiff’s intestate as a passenger for or on behalf of the defendant. For this reason the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff in this action.

Tyson v. Frutchey, 194 N. C., 750 , 140 S. E., 718 . In that case the principle is approved that when a motor ear is used by one to whom it was loaned, for his own purposes, no liability attaches to the lender, unless, possibly, where the lender knew that the borrower was incompetent, and that injury might occur while he was using the car, because of his incompetency. See Reich v. Cone, 180 N. C., 267 , 104 S. E., 330 .

Conceding, therefore, without deciding, that there were errors in the instructions of the court to the jury, as contended by plaintiff on her appeal to this Court, we are of opinion that such errors do not entitle plaintiff to a new trial. The judgment is affirmed on the authority of Rhodes v. Upholstery Co., 197 N. C., 673 , 150 S. E., 193 , and Steel Co. v. Rose, 197 N. C., 464 , 149 S. E., 555 .

Upon the uncontroverted facts, as shown by the evidence offered by the plaintiff, she is not entitled to recover in this action, and any error committed by the court in the charge to the jury was harmless.

Rankin v. Oates, 183 N. C., 517 , 112 S. E., 32 .

The judgment is Affirmed.