884 REM '1): WOODS. • - [192 :REID v. WOODS 4-4320 pilliOD deliyered . June. 22, 1936. 1. AUTOMOBILES—MASTER 'AND SERVANT.—The general rule is that the loan of an. autOMobile,does not carry, with it responsibility for the 'negligence, of . the :borrower; so where .a servant, while not engaged in. the master's business, uses the master's automobile for his own purpose, and . while so using it negligently injures . another • by its operatfciii, the Master is not, in the . absence f statute, liable therefor, , although the iutoniobile was being used with his knowledge and consent.. • . • 2. AUTOMOBILES.—A ,sheriff who has Joaned his automobile to his , deputy to be :. used in making a visit to the deputy's sister, and haVing no connection with his business as deputy sheriff, iS not reSpOnsible fOr an injury caused by negligent operation of the car. :Appeal from . PUldsk . i . Circnit . Court, 'Second sion ; Richar . d . M. Muun, Judge; reversed. • : Fred M..Piehens, for appellant.. BUZbee, IlarrisOu, Buzbee & Wright, for appellee.
ARE.] REID V. WoonS. 885 SMITH, J.' Appellee . Woods recovered' a judgmeilt against W. A. Eldred and. Lee Reid; froml'which only Reid, has. appealed, to. compensate , an injury, which ap-pellee, sustained, xesulting from a ,collision of an :auto-. mobile in which he was riding with another, car owned.by , Reid;, but being driven by Eldred. For , the reversal , of this,judgment only one error is ,assigned and argued ;,and that:is that the,testimpny. does . : not show that, Eldred, at . the time of the collision, was the agent of Reia, or that Eldred was aetifig • Within the seope of hiS 'ageney. • . The testimony . Stated in the light. most favorable' 'to plaintiff, APPellee; :is . ' to , the felloWing effect. the sheriff Of . ,T*fipll coupty, and his ..dUties required him to make a trip to IlattiesbUrg, tO Pick up , a prisener at thatplace. 'Reid took Eldred'with him on long . trips to help drive,. as . Eldred was,:a gooa driver, : It ' is not . usual for" one Man, to go .anywhcre atone akter. a , Prisdner • arid Eldred. Was ' carried alorio."tb d . rive. • Reid , visited Woods , in the hospital . after. the , lision, and stated to him that Eidred was a deputy ;. and that he and Eldred were . on their way to Mississippi to gef a priSonet;'and that he":Carried . Eldred With him to leOk after the ehr. •-" : • , • • . , . . Reid, aCcoMpanied by Eldred,ldrove . the , ear .frona Newport . to Little Rock, a distanCe . of 90 Miles,' Where they, arrived about . 9 a.- in. : Reid' -was in Little Reck to teStify befere the -Feaerat Grand Jury, and to a.tteti.d to some other biisineSs. 'Eldred borrowed the car to:go out to his Sisters for dinner. • It wa:8 agreed . ' that.-Reid and Eldred Wouid' Meet :again at 8 a.' m:, the. following day and resume their • jeuriaeY, a distance of' '400 mile from-Little Rock: With tiffs Understanding EldreddroVe aWay in the; car at 5 :pa p. m., to his siSter's-hOme.'This was-purely a. social Visit T. ith whiCh Reid had mi 'c'oncern. After . borrowing the 'car,: fOr the purpose , of -Making . thig visit, Eldred drove if to the . home of. his -sister Who told him that their brOther; a city fireman, 'had . a poisoned hand: They 'Went for this btOther and brOught him to their si'sfe.r 's home. — After dinner' 'Eldred -Was driving hiS brother baCk to. ' the fire 'station,' Where he was ein-
886 REID V. WOODS. [192 ployed, and while on the way there the collision occurred in which appellee was injured. The agency of Eldred as Reid's chauffeur ceased at 5:30 p. m., and had not been resumed when the collision occurred. The effect of the undisputed testimony "is • to establish the fact that . Reid had . loaned his car to Eldred to use for a purpose having no relation to- his agency, to make a social visit, with which Reid had no concern. In 5, Blashfield's Cyc. of Automobile LaW, i. seCtion nurhbered 3025 entitled "Loan of Automobile tO Servant,'.' ', extending froth page 165 to page 170, states,.the law to' be that "Under the general rule a loan o 'f a MaChine does , not carry witehs pit ornsibility fOr the negligence of the borroWer, where'a servant, while ,'hot engaged' in the master's buSiness, and' during a time when he is free to engage in his ovin pursuits, use's the Master's' automobile for his ' own . purpose, and while so using it negligently injures' another by. its' operation, the master is not liable, no statute so prescribing, although • suCh" use • 'is with the knowledge . -and " consent of the. Masten" . " , . If this is a correct 'statement of the law, there can be no recOvery against Reid. That it 'is a correct statement of the law appears from the numerous'cases cited in the note to the text qUoted. We have a. number, of automobile., cases which support the principle of law upon which the quoted statement. is based. Among others, the, following: Healey v. Coekrill, 133 Ark. 327, 202 S. W. 229; Volentine v. Wyatt, 164 Ark. 172, 261 S. W. 308 ; Bizzel v. Hamiter, 168 Ark. 476, 270 S. W. 602; Cahill v. Bradford, 172 . Ark. 69, 287 S. W. 595.; Campbell Baking Co. v. Clark, 175 Ark. 899, 1 .S. W...(2d) 35 ; Keller v. TVhite, 173 Ark. 885, 293 S. W. 1017; Hunter v. Pirst State Bank, 181 Ark. 907, 28 S. W. (2d) 712; Southwestern• Bell.Telephone Co. v..Rob-erts,.182 Ark. 211, 31 S. W. (2d) 302 ; Mullins v. Ritchie Gro. Co., 183 Ark. 218, 35 S.W. (2d) 1010 ; Casteel v. Yan-tis-Harper Tire Co., 183 Ark. 475 and 912, 36 S. W. (2d) 406, 39 S. W..(2d) 306; Featherston v. Jackson., .183 Ark. 373, 36 S. W. (24) . 405; Ricks y. Sanderson, 185 Ark.
ARK.] 887 828, 49 S. W..(2d) 604; Richards v. McCall, 187 Ark. 61; 58 S. W. (2d) . 432: • •, 'We conclude, therefore, that Reid was not respon, sible for Eldted's negligent driving of the borrowed automobile, which was being used for a private and personal purpose having no relation tO Eldred's agency; and, as the case has 'been fully developed, it must 'be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.