Crisp v. Wright

• Decision Date: 16 July 1937
• Docket Number: 26095.
• Citation: 192 S.E. 390,56 Ga.App. 338
• Parties: CRISP v. WRIGHT.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

192 S.E. 390

56 Ga.App. 338

CRISP v. WRIGHT.

No. 26095.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

July 16, 1937

Judgment Adhered to on Rehearing July 30, 1937.

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence authorized the inference that the plaintiff's automobile, while parked on a public street, was damaged by being negligently run into by the defendant's automobile as the proximate result of the negligence of the defendant in knowingly permitting his automobile to be operated by an irresponsible drunken person. The evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff.

Error from Municipal Court of Atlanta; Clarence Bell, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Mary M. Wright against W. G. Crisp. To review a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Mrs Mary M. Wright instituted suit against W. G. Crisp to recover damages to the plaintiff's automobile allegedly resulting from the negligence of the defendant in the operation of the automobile by his authorized agent, or in the operation of the automobile by one who at the time was drunk, to whom the defendant had intrusted the automobile with knowledge of this person's drunken condition.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff had left her automobile parked on a public street between 12 and 1 o'clock at night without any lights thereon, in violation of the law, and that the defendant's automobile, which was not driven by the defendant who was not in the automobile, but was driven by another person, deviated to the left side of the street and collided with and damaged, to the extent indicated by evidence, the automobile of the plaintiff which was on the left side of the street. It appeared without dispute from the evidence that the defendant, Crisp, was in a restaurant and was under the influence of whisky; that a policeman suggested to the defendant that he permit a person by the name of Gordon Tyson to drive the defendant's automobile and take the defendant to the hotel where he resided, or take him wherever he was going; that the defendant acquiesced in this suggestion, and gave the keys of the automobile to Tyson; that another person by the name of Howard got into the automobile, and the defendant Crisp stated to Howard, "come on I will take you home in a few minutes or after a while"; that Tyson, Howard, and the defendant went off in the automobile, with Tyson driving that, after leaving in the automobile, Crisp invited them to go by his place of business and get a drink; that they went there, and both Howard and Tyson took several drinks of liquor which Crisp gave them; that they all left in the automobile, with Tyson driving, and went to 87 Harris street that after arriving at 87 Harris street all of them took several drinks; that Tyson did not like the surroundings at 87 Harris street, and, after staying there a short while, he and Howard got into the automobile, leaving Crisp behind and, so far as it appears from the evidence, without any express authority from Crisp or without any knowledge of Crisp, proceeded to take Howard home; that Tyson decided to take Howard home because Crisp had stated that he (Crisp) would take Howard home; and he (Tyson) thought that in taking Howard home he was doing Crisp a favor; that Crisp never took back the keys of the automobile from Tyson; that Tyson took Howard home, and as Tyson was going back to town, in Crisp's automobile which Tyson was driving, the automobile ran into the plaintiff's parked automobile and damaged it; that at the time Tyson was drinking and remembered nothing about the collision with the plaintiff's automobile; that Tyson got out of the automobile, which he was operating, and ran. It further appears from the evidence that after the collision Tyson endeavored to find Crisp and report to Crisp what had happened, but that Tyson was too drunk to find Crisp, and went to sleep and did not awake until morning; that after he awoke he went to Crisp's place of business to report, and Crisp had him arrested; that he was tried on the charge of driving an automobile without permission of the owner, and the case was dismissed. There is evidence that Tyson stated to the police officer who arrested him that he did not mean to steal the...