Ficklen v. Heichelheim
| Decision Date | 21 September 1934 |
| Docket Number | 23546. |
| Citation | 176 S.E. 540,49 Ga.App. 777 |
| Parties | FICKLEN v. HEICHELHEIM. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1934.
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Married woman held liable for minor son's negligence in driving automobile which was her separate property, with her consent, for purpose of going on picnic with his friends.
Married woman who permits family to use automobile which is her separate property for family purposes may be liable for negligent driving of such automobile by her minor son, under "family purpose doctrine," notwithstanding she is not head of family, and her husband lives with her and also owns automobile used for family pleasure and comfort.
Married woman who permitted use of automobile which was her separate property for family pleasure and comfort as part of her parental duties held liable for son's negligence in so operating automobile, although not obliged to furnish use of automobile to son.
"Family purpose doctrine" is as applicable where family purpose automobile is owned by mother as where it is owned by father.
Parent whose minor child causes injury while driving parent's automobile has burden of overcoming presumption that child was driving vehicle for parent, and where evidence shows that family automobile is habitually used by minor child as member of family it is a reasonable inference that automobile was being operated by authority of parent for purposes for which it was maintained.
Mother's allowing minor son to drive mother's automobile is negligence, where mother knows that son is in habit of driving in reckless manner.
Evidence that minor son was in habit of driving mother's automobile recklessly and had such reputation in neighborhood held sufficient to take to jury question of mother's knowledge of son's use of automobile and of his recklessness in driving.
Error from Superior Court, Wilkes County; C.J. Perryman, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. M. Heichelheim against Mrs. L. R. D. Ficklen. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Haas Gambrell & Gardner and Charles D. Hurt, all of Atlanta, and W. A. Slaton and Clement E. Sutton, both of Washington, Ga for plaintiff in error.
Earle Norman, of Washington, Ga., for defendant in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. A married woman owning an automobile as her separate property which she permitted to be used by the different members of the family for the family comfort and pleasure, is liable for the negligence of her minor son in driving such automobile, with her knowledge and consent, for the purpose of going on a picnic and carrying some of his friends. Griffin v. Russell, 144 Ga. 275, 87 S.E. 10, L.R.A. 1916F, 216, Ann.Cas. 1917D, 994.
2. A married woman owning an automobile as her separate property, which she allows members of the family to use for family purposes, may be liable for the negligent driving of such automobile by her minor son, under the "family purpose doctrine," even though she is not the head of the family, but her husband is living with her and also owns an automobile which is used for family pleasure and comfort. Griffin v. Russell, supra.
3. While the wife was not obliged to furnish the use of an automobile to the children or her family from her separate property, but having voluntarily done so, and having permitted its use as a part of her parental duties, she was liable where the injury occurred by reason of the operation of such automobile by a member of the family in a negligent manner, where such use was for the family pleasure and comfort. Griffin v. Russell, supra, citing Guignon v. Campbell, 80 Wash. 543, 141 P. 1031.
4. There is no merit in the contention of the defendant that the "family purpose doctrine" is only applicable when the family purpose automobile is owned by the father because he is the head of the family, and that such doctrine ought not to apply to the mother or any other member of the family. There is no difference in principle between the ownership by the father and by the mother. 42 C.J. 840, 1083, and cit.; Griffin v. Russell, supra.
5. The burden of proof is upon a parent whose minor child causes an...
To continue reading
Request your trial