Sink v. . Sechrest

Stacy, C. J. Counsel have discussed with much learning and manifest research the rationale of proximate cause and the liability of a minor for the tort of his agent, complicated on the present record by the fact that in two of the cases the defendant pleads his infancy, while in the other he, not only does not plead it, but denies it. However, we put these matters aside because it appears the relation existing between the *234 defendant and bis stepmother in respect of the Ford Coupe at the time of the injuries was that of bailor and bailee, rather than principal and agent. Hanes v. Shapiro, 168 N. C., 24, 84 S. E., 33; 6 Am. Jur., 184. The cases are in accord that generally a third party may not recover of the bailor for the negligent use by the bailee of the bailed chattel, in the absence^ of some control exercised by the bailor at the time, or of negligence on his part which proximately contributed to the injury. 8 C. J. S., 318; 19 A. L. R., 1194; Tyson v. Frutchey, 194 N. C., 150, 140 S. E., 718. The doctrine of respondeat superior ordinarily is inapplicable to the relationship of bailor and bailee, unless made so by statute. 6 Am. Jur., 396. While the plaintiffs’ injuries are great and the accident a most unfortunate one, still we cannot say on the present record that negligence has been shown for which the defendant, in law, may be held liable. The demurrer to the evidence was well interposed. Reversed.