Evening Republican, Volume 21, Number 65, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 March 1918 — OWNER HELD LIABLE FOR SPEED OF MOTOR [ARTICLE]

OWNER HELD LIABLE FOR SPEED OF MOTOR

Gist of Important Case Decided Somß Years Ago. If He Is Occupant of Vehicle He Is Held by Court to Have Perm’tted Violation—Operator Is Usually Punished. Few automobile owners know or realize that if they are driving and their driver should overspeed their car they may be charged with overspeeding or operating unlawfully as well as the driver himself. This liability exists because it is presumed, says the New England Motorist, on account of his being in the machine and having a general control thereof as registered owner, that he knew and allowed his vehicle to be illegally run. This was the gist of an Important case decided some years ago where the owner, who was seated in the tonneau, was summoned to court for overspeeding. Owner Found Guilty. The court held that he could, be found guilty, not because he was owner, but because of the fact that as registered owner of the machine, with the consequent right to control It while riding therein, he was presumed to have participated in the vehicle being run at an unlawful speed, and unless this presumption against him were explained or contradicted, the jury would be warranted in believing he did so participate in the driver’s act, and iu finding him therefore guilty. Apparently, then, If the owner were riding in front beside the driver it would be harder for him to explain that he dhl not know and allow tfnd hence participate in the illegal act than if he were seated elsewhere in the car.

When, too, the operator is the chauffeur of the owner in the automobile, the fact of employment, involving the right of the latter to direct and control the former, would make the presumption stronger than in the case where this relationship did not exist. When Not Guilty. But in either or any case, where It cbuld be proved that the owner or person in charge of the automobile, although riding therein, was not likely to know and did not do' or say anything to direct or control it, or as to how the driver should manage it, the owner or person In charge might not be found to have participated in the driver’s unlawful act. The enforcing authorities, however, usually confine their complaint to the operator, preferring in such cases not to raise these additional questions tn court. Nevertheless, the owner or person in charge of the machine should keep them in mind, otherwise an unpleasant surprise may await him.