Gorton v. Doty
69 P.2d 136 (Idaho 1937).

Facts:
Richard Gorton played on his high school football team. Coach Russell Garst borrowed Teacher Doty’s car and drove him to the game. They got into an accident and the Gortons sued Doty.

  • Doty said that only Coach Garst could drive.

History:
The trial court awarded the father $870 and the son $5,000.

Issue:
Whether or not Coach Gharst was the agent of Doty while driving her car.

Holding:
Yes. Affirmed.

Reasoning:
Restatement: “Agency is the relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his (principal’s) behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.”

  • No contract or compensation is required, nor is the term “agency”.
  • Actions are what matter.

Here, Doty designating the driver
 as well as the purpose was enough for the court to find that Gharst was acting on Doty’s behalf and subject to her control.

Dissent:
Agency requires more than “passive permission”; it requires a command or instruction. This was nothing more than a kind gesture.