Cited by

Co. 189 Minn. 109 , ; and Often v. Big Lake Ice Co. 198 *141 Minn. 356, .

Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356, 360, 361 , ; Farnham v. Pepper, 193 Minn. 222, 226, 227 , ; Holmes v. Lilygren Motor Co. Inc. 201 Minn. 44, 47 , .

970; Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891; Plasch v. Fass, 144 Minn. 44 , , 10 A. L. R. 1446; Menton v. Patterson Merc.

Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891; Johnson v. Smith, 143 Minn. 350 , ; Turner v. Gackle, 168 Minn. 514 , ; Martin v. Schiska, 183 Minn. 256 , .

Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891; Jones v. Schreiber, 166 Minn. 177 , ; Amon v. Nehr, 176 Minn. 410 , ; Stenstrom v. Blooston, 177 Minn. 95 , ; 4 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

state a sounder rule more applicable here, Rolfe v. Hewitt, 227 N. Y. 486, 491 , 125 N. E. 804, 805 , 14 A. L. R. 125, where it is said: “When the owner of a private car sends his chauffeur on an errand, that does not give him authority to take into it a person casually met upon the highway.” We do not think that plaintiff is aided by “the family car” doctrine within the rule of Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891.

In Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356, 361 , , 2 A. L. R. 891, the plaintiff was riding as a guest in a car which was being driven betAveen 30 and 45 miles an hour on a dark night and Avhich went into a ditch at an unexpected turn in the road.

Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891; Holland v. Yellow Cab Co. 144 Minn. 475 , ; Lochhead v. Jensen, 42 Utah, 99 , 129 Pac.

In Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891, the father was held liable, the issue being submitted to the jury, for the negligence of his son, who was driving, resulting in the injury of his guest.

Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 L. R. A. 891, and the many subsequent-cases involving the responsibility of the head of the family for negli *329 gent operation by any member of tbe family of a car owned and kept for the pleasure or convenience .of tbe family, required tbe submission of Mr. Flynn’s liability to tbe jury.

holds that when the head of a family makes it his business to furnish an automobile to provide recreation and pleasure for the members of the family, he- is responsible for its negligent use by any one of the family having his permission to drive it, Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970; Uphoff v. McCormick, 139 Minn. 392 , ; Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 891; Johnson v. Smith, 143 Minn. 350 , ; Plasch v. Fass, 144 Minn. 44 , , 10 A. L. R. 1446, and it i

Thus in Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , *319 2 A. L. R. 891, a charge that until the contrary was shown it would be presumed that the use oí a family automobile by the son was an authorized use, was held not to constitute reversible error.

The case on its facts is a close one; but within Kayser v. Van Nest, 125 Minn. 277 , , 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 970; Jensen v. Fischer, 131 Minn. 336 , ; and Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A. L. R. 871, and the cases there cited, it was for the jury and not the court to say whether the Dort car was kept so much for a family use and its use for the pleasure of Roderick so much sanctioned that the father was responsible for his son’s negligence.

Ploetz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169 , ; Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 A.L.R.

970; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; and Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , , 2 L.R.A.

970; Jensen v. Fischer, 134 Minn. 366 , ; Uphoff v. McCormick, 139 Minn. 392 , ; Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , .

Johnson v. Evans, 141 Minn. 356 , .