Davis v. Gavalas

• Citation: 139 S.E. 577,37 Ga.App. 242
• Decision Date: 30 September 1927
• Docket Number: 17668.
• Parties: DAVIS v. GAVALAS et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

139 S.E. 577

37 Ga.App. 242

DAVIS v. GAVALAS et al.

No. 17668.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

September 30, 1927

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In suit against parents of child for personal injuries caused by child's riding a velocipede on public sidewalk at night allegations that parents furnished velocipede to child knowingly permitted him to ride under circumstances indicated, and that child was incompetent to use velocipede and negligently collided with plaintiff, were equivalent to charging parents with negligence in knowingly permitting child of 5 years to use velocipede, and charged actionable negligence against parents.

Petition for personal injuries caused by child striking plaintiff while riding a velocipede, alleging that child was, on account of his tender years, incapable of committing negligence, did not state cause of action against child.

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; A. L. Franklin, Judge.

Suit by Sophia Davis against G. B. Gavalas and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed in part, and affirmed in part.

W. D Lanier, of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

W. Inman Curry, of Augusta, for defendants in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

STEPHENS J.

1. In a suit against the parents of a child for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff as a result of being run into by the child, who at the time was 5 years of age, while the child was riding a velocipede upon a public sidewalk at night, allegations to the effect that the parents furnished the velocipede to the child and knowingly permitted him to ride it upon the sidewalk under the circumstances indicated, and that the child, who on account of his tender years was irresponsible, incompetent, and unqualified to use the velocipede with such care and diligence as not to injure the plaintiff, used the velocipede and negligently collided with the plaintiff, were equivalent to alleging that the parents were negligent in knowingly permitting a child of such age to use the velocipede in the manner stated, and charged actionable negligence on the part of the parents.

2. Where the petition alleged that the child was, on account of his tender years, incapable of committing negligence, no cause of action against the child was set out.

3. This being a suit by the person injured against the parents and the child jointly, to recover damages for the injuries received...