Adamson v. Mcewen

• Decision Date: 18 March 1913
• Docket Number: (No. 4,589.)
• Citation: 77 S.E. 591,12 Ga.App. 508
• Parties: ADAMSON et al. v. McEWEN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

77 S.E. 591

12 Ga.App. 508

ADAMSON et al.

v.McEWEN.

(No. 4, 589.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 18, 1913.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Master and Servant (§ 301^*)—Relationship—Negligence of Servant.

A. invited B. to become his guest in an automobile, for a trip to a designated point. B. consented to do so if A. would permit him to pay the expenses of the party while at the point of destination. The automobile was driven by a chauffeur of A. B. had no interest in the automobile, and exercised no control or management over the chauffeur in the actual driving or operation of the machine. Held, that B. was not liable for the negligent conduct of the chauffeur in the operation of the machine.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent Dig. §§ 1210-1216; Dec. Dig. § 301.*]

Error from City Court of Carrollton; Jas. Beall, Judge.

Action by M. P. McEwen against Charles Adamson and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.

Buford Boykin and R. W. Adamson, both of Carrollton, for plaintiffs in error.

Newell & Fielder, of Carrollton, for defendant in error.

HILL, C. J. This was a suit against four persons to recover the value of a mule, alleged to have been killed by their negligent conduct in the running and operation of an automobile. A verdict was returned against three of the defendants, Shirley Boykin, Russell Smith, and Charles Adamson, and in favor of the other defendant, Dave Horton. Boykin, Smith, and Adamson filed a joint motion for new trial, which was overruled; and the judgment overruling the motion is assigned as error. Boykin insists that the verdict against him was without any evidence to support it, in that he had no interest whatever in the automobile, had no power or control over the automobile or the running of the same, was simply riding in it, as a guest of Charles Adamson, who had invited him to ride in it from Carrollton to Borden-Wheeler Springs, and that he owed no duty whatever to the plaintiff or to any one else in connection with the operation of the machine.

It may be stated generally that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict as to Adamson and Smith; Adamson being in control of the automobile (having borrowed it from the owner), and Smith being the chauffeur, who was actually operating and running the machine, at the instance of Adamson, at the time of the negligence complained of. The material part of the evidence, in brief, shows that Adamson invited Boykin to go with him on a trip to Borden-Wheeler Springs, and offered to furnish the automobile and the driver; and Boykin with some reluctance, due to the fact that he had just returned from Borden-Wheeler Springs, agreed to accompany him, if he (Boykin) should be permitted to pay the hotel expenses of the party while at Borden-Wheeler Springs.

There is no conflict in the evidence as to these facts, and from them.we are clear that the verdict as to Boykin was unauthorized, as being without evidence to support it He was simply an invited guest of Adamson. He had nothing to do with the machine; he did not pay for its use; he did not pay for the chauffeur who was operating it; and therefore no duty was imposed by law on him in connection with the running and operation of the machine. It was not a joint enterprise of Adamson and...