majority"> *346 Per Curiam.

The only ground upon which plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon the defendant, the owner of the automobile, is the incompetency of the driver to whom it was loaned.

It is well settled that liability does not arise from mere ownership of an automobile, nor can it be based solely on the danger of the machine. The burden was on the plaintiff to show, in addition to the fact of ownership, that the car was loaned to a reckless and incompetent driver, and that the incompetency of the driver was known to the owner. Huddy on Automobiles, 795-797, 838; Taylor v. Caudle, ante, 60; Linville v. Nissen, 162 N. C., 95.

The only pertinent evidence offered by the plaintiff on this point was: (1) The admission in the answer that the automobile “bad been loaned to Lybrook” (the driver) ; (2) the statement by the defendant that “be bad asked bis wife not to let the boy have the car. He didn’t say why”; (3) the testimony of witness Orrell, a resident of Davie County: “His general reputation as driver of automobiles is reckless, careless, and dangerous. . . . He bad the general reputation I stated, ever since be has been in Davie County, ever since 1927, since bis father moved over there to Davie County.” The defendant and bis wife live in Forsyth County, in the city of 'Winston-Salem. There was no evidence of any instance of recklessness or incompetency on the part of Lybrook.

We conclude that the evidence offered is insufficient to impose liability on the defendant, the owner of the automobile, for the negligence of the driver in its operation on the occasion alleged.

Judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress