Dougherty v. Woodward

• Citation: 21 Ga.App. 427,94 S.E. 636
• Decision Date: 13 December 1917
• Docket Number: (No. 9015.)
• Parties: DOUGHERTY . v. WOODWARD.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

94 S.E. 636

(21 Ga.App. 427)

DOUGHERTY .

v.WOODWARD.

(No. 9015.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Dec. 13, 1917.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The owner of an automobile is not liable for injuries inflicted by his son, 20 years of age, in negligently operating it, where it appears that at the time of the injuries the sou was using the car for his own purposes, and not as the agent, or servant, of the father.

The trial judge, under the facts appearing in the record, did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. Bell, Judge.

Suit by Leola Dougherty against J. C. Woodward. Judgment for defendant upon a directed verdict, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Mrs. Dougherty sued Woodward for the financial value of the life of her son, alleged to have been killed by the defendant's son in the negligent operation of defendant's automobile. It is alleged in her petition that:

"Defendant's son at said time and place drove defendant's automobile, and the other occupant of the automobile was defendant's wife, and the automobile at said time and place was operated for and in behalf of defendant, and in the furtherance of his interest."

By amendment it was alleged:

"Said automobile was owned by the defendant and was for the use of his family, and each member of his family, and for his family collectively in their recreation and for their pleasure, and for the purpose of transporting the members of his said family from place to place for any purposes which the said members of his family wanted to use said car for, and as they desired, and said car was so used by the different members of the defendant's family, and at said timeand place the said defendant's automobile had

in it, as occupants, two members of defendant's family, and said automobile was being used in transporting the wife of the defendant, and was being driven by the defendant's son, and was being used by the son and the wife of the defendant for one of the purposes for which said automobile was kept by the defendant."

After the conclusion of the evidence for plaintiff and defendant the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, to which ruling the plaintiff excepted. So much of the evidence as is material to an understanding of the case is given in the opinion, infra.

Nalley & Scott, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Moore & Branch, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

HARWELL, J. [1] It is not necessary to consider the allegations or the proof as to the acts of negligence charged to the defendant's son, the value of the life of plaintiff's deceased son, or any other circumstances save that of the agency of the son in driving the defendant's car, which feature we deem controlling upon the case. The evidence was in sharp conflict as to whether the car, driven by the defendant's son at the time of the injury, was the property of the defendant or his wife and would have authorized either conclusion. However, conceding that the car was the property of the defendant and was being negligently driven by his son, the father would still not be liable, unless the son, in driving the car, was In the performance of his father's business.

"It may be taken as settled law in this state that a father...