Gorton v. Doty

Doty (appellant) told the Football coach that "he might use mine [auto] if he drove it." There was an accident on the drive to Paris.

Lower court awarded $870 for father of victim and $5000 to son. Appealed.

Was the football coach acting as an agent of Doty when he drove the car, thereby imposing liability on Doty?

Doty did not loan her car to the coach, but let him drive it as her agent. There were no words about loaning or borrowing the car.

Coach was Doty's agent.

Affirmed

There does not need to be a K nor a business deal to indicate an agency. Doty exercised control over the coach by telling him that he couldn't let student drive.

Also, the P's attorney made a comment to the jury that hinted that the D might have auto insurance, which, according to J. Budge's dissent, is clear error.