Eason v. Joy Floral Co.

• Decision Date: 10 November 1925
• Docket Number: 16662.
• Citation: 130 S.E. 352,34 Ga.App. 501
• Parties: EASON v. JOY FLORAL CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

130 S.E. 352

34 Ga.App. 501

EASON v. JOY FLORAL CO.

No. 16662.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

November 10, 1925

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Where servant, while not engaged in master's business, and during time when he was free to engage in his own pursuits used master's automobile for his own purposes, with knowledge and consent of master, and, while so using it negligently injured another by its operation, master is not liable.

Mere fact that there are conflicts in testimony does not render direction of verdict erroneous, when conflicts are immaterial, and, giving opposite party benefit of evidence and inferences therefrom, verdict against him was demanded.

In action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by servant of automobile owner, where court properly directed verdict for owner notwithstanding immaterial conflicts in evidence, such ruling was not affected by fact that plaintiff's evidence raised presumption against owner and that owner's witnesses were sought to be impeached by proof of contradictory statements and of conflicts in their testimony, since impeaching evidence went wholly to immaterial issues, and would not have authorized finding that witnesses were discredited.

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by Tyler Eason against the Joy Floral Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Hewlett & Dennis and Harwell, Fairman & Barrett, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Jones, Evins, Moore & Powers, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

BROYLES C.J.

1. Where a servant, while not engaged in the performance of his master's business, and during a time when he is free to engage in his own pursuits, uses his master's automobile for his own purposes (although he does so with the knowledge and consent of his master), and, while so using it, negligently injures another by its operation, the master is not liable for the injuries. Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 (5), 77 S.E. 618; Dougherty v. Woodward, 21 Ga.App. 427 (1), 94 S.E. 636.

2. Under the above-stated ruling and the particular facts of the instant case, the court properly directed a verdict for the defendant. While it is true that there were some slight conflicts in the evidence, none of them was on a material issue, and the evidence as a whole demanded the verdict directed.

"The mere fact that there are conflicts in the

...