{
  "id": 2907300,
  "name": "John E. Bastien, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, and Chicago City Railway Company, on appeal of Ford Motor Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bastien v. Ford Motor Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-11-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 19,758",
  "first_page": "367",
  "last_page": "369",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "189 Ill. App. 367"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 3605,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.533,
    "sha256": "0d02c5bd6871fdddc9adff111bc512b7483ee2e26ee9079a37ad098da3e1bf6a",
    "simhash": "1:89656a4515ac9718",
    "word_count": 626
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:10.053698+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John E. Bastien, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, and Chicago City Railway Company, on appeal of Ford Motor Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Automobiles and garages, \u00a7 2 \u2014when negligence of driver of automobile not imputable to his employer. Where a person took his automobile to an automobile company to have a \u201crattle\u201d in the car located and an employee of the company got in the car and rode with the owner and later, at the suggestion of the owner, the employee drove the machine until it collided with a street car and the owner was injured, held that the negligence of the employee, if any, in driving the car could not be imputed to the automobile company so as to make it liable to the owner for his injuries, it appearing that the owner was directing the employee where to drive the machine, that the company had no authority to control the employee in driving it and that the company had not assumed the service of driving \u00f3r operating it.\n2. Negligence, \u00a7 104 \u2014rule as to imputed negligence. In order that the negligence of one person may be imputed to another, they must stand in such relation of privity that the maxim qui fadt per alium, fadt per se directly applies.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Defress, Buckingham & Eaton, for appellant Ford Motor Company; Marquis Eaton and Don K. Jones, of counsel.",
      "Watson J. Ferry, for appellant Chicago City Railway Company; Leonard A. Busby, Warner H. Robinson and B. F. Richolson, of counsel.",
      "Charles C. Spencer and E. W. Austin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John E. Bastien, Appellee, v. Ford Motor Company, and Chicago City Railway Company, on appeal of Ford Motor Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 19,758.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. John P. McGoorty, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed November 9, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by John E. Bastien against Ford Motor Company and Chicago City Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries- received by plaintiff in a collision between an automobile in which he was riding and a street car.\nPlaintiff was the owner of a Ford automobile, which he had used a year. The Ford Company had in Chicago a shop where it repaired automobiles. In this shop one Walters was employed as mechanic \u201cto overhaul motors.\u201d On the day of the accident plaintiff telephoned the Ford Company, asking: \u201cCan I bring my car down to locate a rattle?\u201d and was told that he could. The same afternoon he took his car to the Ford shop, was introduced to Walters and told by Nicollett, who was in charge of the shop: \u201cHere is a good man to take out and locate the rattle.\u201d Walters had quit work for the day and was about to go home. He lived three miles south of the Ford shop and plaintiff lived several blocks farther south. Walters got into the car with plaintiff, who drove it south to Twenty-third street. There, on the suggestion of plaintiff, he and Walters changed seats, Walters taking the steering wheel and plaintiff sitting by his side. At Thirty-second street plaintiff told Walters to turn into Thirty-second street. Walters did so, proceeded east to Indiana avenue, and there the car was struck by a Chicago City railway car and plaintiff sustained the injuries complained of.\nPlaintiff had judgment against both defendants for fifteen hundred dollars. To reverse the judgment, the Ford Motor Company appeals.\nA separate appeal was taken from the judgment by the Chicago City Railway Company. For the opinion of the Appellate Court rendered on that appeal see post, p. 369.\nDefress, Buckingham & Eaton, for appellant Ford Motor Company; Marquis Eaton and Don K. Jones, of counsel.\nWatson J. Ferry, for appellant Chicago City Railway Company; Leonard A. Busby, Warner H. Robinson and B. F. Richolson, of counsel.\nCharles C. Spencer and E. W. Austin, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0367-01",
  "first_page_order": 393,
  "last_page_order": 395
}