Atlanta Furniture Co v. Walker, 24512.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 24512.,24512. |
| Citation | 51 Ga.App. 781,181 S.E. 498 |
| Parties | ATLANTA FURNITURE CO. v. WALKER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1935.
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Municipal Court of Atlanta, Appellate Division.
Suit by John Walker against the Atlanta Furniture Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
D. K. Johnston, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. D. Hurt and Irving-S. Nathan, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Although a servant may have made a temporary departure from the service of his master, and in so doing may for the time have severed the relationship of master and servant, yet, where the object of the servant's departure has been accomplished and he has resumed the discharge of his duties to the master, the responsibility of the master for the acts of the servant reattaches. Where a servant whose duty in the employment of the master, is to drive a truck and to make delivery of an article of merchandise at a designated place, and then return with the truck to the garage where it is to be placed for the night, and where the servant, after having proceeded to the place for delivery of the merchandise, instead of proceeding to return the truck to the garage, makes a temporary departure from the service of the master by proceeding with the truck on a devious course from that necessary to return it to the garage and goes to his own home on a mission of his own, and where after attending to this mission, he proceeds, about 9 o'clock at night, to return the truck to the garage as his duties to the master require him, the servant has then resumed his duties to the master, and in the operation of the truck for the purpose of returning it to the garage he is acting within the scope of his authority and is in the discharge of his duty to the master. Where in returning the truck to the garage, the servant negligently runs it against and injures an automobile belonging to another person, the servant's negligence is the negligence of the master. Barmore v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 85 Miss. 426, 38 So. 210, 70 L. R. A. 627, 3 Ann. Cas. 594; Riley v. Standard Oil Co., 231 N. Y. 301, 132 N. E. 97, 22 A. L. R. 1382; Edwards v. Earnest, 206 Ala. 1, 89 So. 729, 22 A. L. R. 1387; Gibson v. Dupree, 26 Colo. App. 324, 144 P. 1133; 39 C. J. 1298. The case of Selman v. Wallace, 45 Ga. App. 688, 165 S. E. 851, is distinguishable, in that the decision, as announced by the majority of the court, was predicated on the proposition that the servant at the time of the injury complained of was proceeding towards a place upon a mission of his own. Greeson v. Bailey, 167 Ga. 638, 146 S. E. 490, Powell v. Cortez, 44 Ga. App. 205, 160 S. E. 698, and Dawson Chevrolet Co. v. Ford, 47 Ga. App. 312, 170 S. E. 306, are clearly distinguishable on the facts. In none of these cases did the injury occur while the servant of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant v. Jones
...71 Ga.App. 130, 30 S.E.2d 349 (1944); Parks v. Maryland Cas. Co., 69 Ga.App. 720, 26 S.E.2d 562 (1943); Atlanta Furniture v. Walker, 51 Ga.App. 781, 181 S.E. 498 (1935). The reliance upon this line of cases is misplaced. The uncontroverted evidence showed that Jones was a borrowed servant w......
-
Adams v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...in the scope of employment at the time the collision occurred. Davies v. Hearn, 45 Ga.App. 276, 164 S.E. 273; Atlanta Furniture Co. v. Walker, 51 Ga.App. 781, 181 S.E. 498; Wicker v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 59 Ga.App. 521, 1 S.E.2d 464; Curtis v. Royal Indemnity Co., 101 Ga.App. 158, 112 S......
-
Reddy-waldhauer-maffett Co v. Spivey
...Wis. 49, 124 N.W. 1016, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 382, 19 Ann. Cas. 1227. The defendant in error insists that the case of Atlanta Furniture Co. v. Walker, 51 Ga.App. 781, 181 S.E. 498, is controlling. That case, however, is based on the principle: "That when the servant has temporarily diverged from ......
-
West Point Pepperell, Inc. v. Knowles
...from his employment in going to the mill had re-entered the scope of his employment when he started to his home. Atlanta Furniture Co. v. Walker, 51 Ga.App. 781(1), 181 S.E. 498. If Barnes was within the scope of his employment while en route to the truck stop to obtain fuel he would have a......