Thomas v. Armitage
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1914, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Kuehmichel v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (Minn. 1914)
- Meyers v. Tri-State Automobile Co. (Minn. 1913)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Appellant’s automobile, while driven by his employee, came in contact with a buggy drawn by a team of horses driven by an employee of respondent. The collision occurred in a public street in Princeton, and resulted in damaging the buggy and frightening the team, which broke away, and ran down the street, and damaged another of respondent’s vehicles, standing in front of his barn.
1. The court correctly instructed the jury that appellant -was responsible for the conduct of the driver of the automobile, if he was guilty of negligence. Appellant had been driving the machine, and when he reached his place of business, stepped out, whereupon his employee, with appellant’s permission, attempted to turn the machine around, when the collision occurred. The driver was not acting independently, but was serving his employer, and was within the scope of his employment.
2. The court charged the jury that it made no difference that the young men who were driving the team were not acting for respondent, and that the owner of the buggies was entitled to recover, provided those in charge of the team were not guilty of negligence and the driver of the automobile was negligent. AVe think the charge correct. Although those in charge of the team were not at that par
The question by respondent’s counsel to the witness Walker, as to whether appellant’s servant blew the horn on his approach, was objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and answered in the negative. The driver of the team admitted that he saw the automobile, and, consequently, whether.the horn was blown was a matter of no importance, and we are unable to discover how appellant was prejudiced.
3. The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury upon the question of negligence on the part of both drivers, and the verdict is supported by the evidence.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.