Evans v. Caldwell
| Citation | 190 S.E. 582,184 Ga. 203 |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | 11318. |
| Parties | EVANS et al. v. CALDWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 25, 1937.
Certiorari from Court of Appeals.
Suit by W. C. Caldwell against Mrs. Eugene Evans and another. To review a judgment of the Court of Appeals (52 Ga.App. 475 184 S.E. 440), affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings certiorari.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
The decision of the Court of Appeals (52 Ga.App. 475, 184 S.E 440), as against the assignments of error herein considered, and for the reasons herein given, is affirmed.
W. M. Sapp, of Dalton, and Neely, Marshall & Greene, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
John M. Slaton, of Atlanta, for parties at interest, not parties to record.
R. Carter Pittman and W. E. Mann, both of Dalton, for defendant in error.
W. C Caldwell filed suit against Mrs. Eugene Evans and her minor son, W. R. Evans, for recovery of damages for the loss of services of the plaintiff's minor son, as the result of an injury alleged to have occurred by reason of the negligent operation of an automobile by W. R. Evans, belonging to Mrs. Eugene Evans. The automobile was maintained by Mrs. Evans for the pleasure and comfort of her family, and had been used by W. R. Evans on numerous occasions for his pleasure, comfort, and enjoyment. On the occasion in question, the mother allowed him to use the automobile to go to a moving picture show, with the understanding that the son would come home immediately after the show. After the show, the son started to a nearby community to go to a dance, and while on this journey the accident occurred, causing the injury to plaintiff's minor son, who was a passenger in the automobile. The jury on the trial returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,000. A motion for new trial was overruled, and the defendants excepted. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (52 Ga.App. 475, 184 S.E. 440, 441), and the defendants brought the case to this court by certiorari. Error is assigned on the ruling of the Court of Appeals as follows: 'A son living with his mother as a member of the family, having general authority to drive the family car for pleasure and convenience, is acting within the scope of his authority in so doing, though on a particular night his mother tells him that he may go to a picture show, but to return home immediately after the show, and after the show he starts to a dance in an adjoining community instead of returning home, as he was told to do; and his mother, the owner of the family car, is liable for his negligence in running the car.' The application of the law of master and servant or of principal and agent to the 'family-car doctrine' is not without difficulty. However, the courts of this state are committed to that doctrine. If the automobile is a family-purpose car, and used by the minor children for their pleasure, comfort, and enjoyment, the car, when used for such purposes, is being used in the prosecution of the business of the parent or master, and the children are acting within the scope of their employment in the parent's or master's...
To continue reading
Request your trial