GORTON V. DOTY
69 P.2d 136 (1937)



PROCEDURAL POSTURE:
Plaintiffs, father and son, brought suit against defendant owner for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Caribou County (Idaho) entered judgments in favor of the father and the son. The trial court denied the owner's motions for new trial. The owner appealed.

FACTS:
Gorton (P), a high school football player, was transported to a game at another school in a private vehicle owned by Doty (D) but driven by Garst, Gorton's (P) football coach. The day before the game. Doty (D) asked Garst if he had enough vehicles to transport the players and offered the use of her vehicle provided the coach drove it. She received no compensation for the use of her vehicle, but the school district paid the gasoline expenses. Doty (D) did not employ or compensate Garst while he used her vehicle. On the way to the game, the vehicle was involved in an accident, and Gorton (P) was injured. Gorton sued Doty to recover for his personal injuries and medical expenses. The jury entered a verdict awarding Gorton damages, and the court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. Doty appealed.

ISSUE
Is an agency relationship created when one loans her vehicle to another on the condition that the other
drive the vehicle?

RULE OF LAW:
An agency relationship is created when a party merely volunteers the use of her car to transport students to a sporting match and requests that only one person drive it.



HOLDING:
Judge Undisclosed) Yes. Agency "is the relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act." Agency takes on three separate forms—a principal-agent relationship, a master-servant relationship, and an employer-employee or independent contractor relationship. Because Doty (D) and Garst exchanged no compensation, the latter two forms are not at issue. A principal-agent relationship arises not only when one transacts business for another, but also when one is generally authorized to "manage some affair for another." Here, Doty (D) volunteered the use of her vehicle upon the express condition that Garst drive it. Although she could have driven the vehicle herself, she specifically and exclusively authorized Garst to drive it in order to supply the transportation needed for the football team. Doty (D) manifested her consent to permit Garst to act on her behalf, and Garst consented to do so. Regardless of whether the parties executed a contract or paid compensation, Garst acted as Doty's (D) agent. Further, when a driver exercises control over another's vehicle, whether the owner is present or not. the driver's permissive use of the vehicle establishes a prima facie case of agency. The jury's conclusion that Garst acted as Doty's (D) agent was reasonable. Affirmed.

ANALYSIS:
Is an agency relationship created when a party merely volunteers the use of her car to transport students to a sporting match and requests that only one person drive it? Yes. Agency is a relationship, which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf, subject to his control
and consent by the other so to act. If Garst were the agent of Appellant, she would be chargeable with the acts of Garst as if she had been driving the car herself The relationship of principal and agent must not necessarily involve some matter of business. When one undertakes to transact some business or manage some affair for another by authority and on account of the latter, the relationship of principal and agent arises. Appellant volunteered her car and designated Garst as the driver in order to help the team get to the game. Appellant thus consented that Garst would act for her in driving her car and Garst consented. It is not necessary that there be a contract between principal and agent or that the agent promise to act as such for the existence of authority. It is not necessary that compensation be exchanged. In addition, it was established in Will, that ownership alone of a car establishes a prima facie case against the owner based on the presumption that the nonowner driver is the agent of the owner. We can surmise from the facts that nothing was said about loaning the car to Garst. We therefore conclude that the relationship of principal to agent exists between the parties. Affirmed.