Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Eudaly
| Decision Date | 17 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 36647,No. 1,36647,1 |
| Parties | FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS v. Mrs. Audrey D. EUDALY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a trip is wholly a personal venture outside the scope of an employee's employment, and his conduct is a complete departure instead of a deviation or detour incidental to his employment, the master will not be liable for the acts of negligence of the employee.
Mrs. Audrey D. Eudaly filed an action against Stafford Benedict and the Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills for damages arising out of a collision between a vehicle driven by the defendant, Benedict, and an automobile in which the plaintiff was riding. The entire case against the Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills rests on the doctrine of respondeat superior as there were no allegations of negligence on its part.
On the trial the evidence disclosed that: Benedict was a traveling salesman for Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills; his territory was part of the States of Tennessee and Mississippi with his headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee; he used his own personal automobile and was reimbursed on a mileage basis; he sold all types of paper and textile bags; there was no control over the time or manner of his work; he made his own itinerary; he was staying at a hotel in Jackson, Mississippi the night prior to the collision; he left the hotel at approximately 8 a. m. the day of the collision; he made no calls that morning; he left Jackson and drove to Bemis, Mississippi, a town which is a short distance from Jackson; the purpose of the trip was to do a friend a 'courtesy' and was in no way connected with his business; the collision occurred on the return trip from Bemis; he planned to go to the hotel on his return and check his mail and make phone calls; he had not planned to make calls on any of his customers until approximately 10 a. m.; no business of any type was transacted on the trip to Bemis; he did not intend to transact any business on the behalf of the Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills until he returned to the hotel to see if he had any further instructions.
At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant, Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, made a motion for a directed verdict which was denied. The jury returned a verdict against both defendants. The defendant, Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, then filed a motion for new trial and a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial judge denied the motions and the defendant, Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, excepts.
Burt DeReux, Marshall, Greene & Neely, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Hamilton Douglas, Jr., Haas, White & Douglas, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills as the defendant, and Mrs. Audrey D. Eudaly as the plaintiff. Stafford Benedict, the codefendant, will be referred to by name.
The defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was predicated on the theory that the evidence did not prove the plaintiff's case as laid; that the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 43155
...473; Cooley v. Tate, 87 Ga.App. 1, 73 S.E.2d 72; Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga.App. 116, 78 S.E.2d 871; Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Eudaly, 95 Ga.App. 644, 98 S.E.2d 235; Brennan v. National NuGrape Co., 106 Ga.App. 709, 128 S.E.2d 81; Sparks v. Buffalo Cab Co., 113 Ga.App. 528, 148 ......
-
Ray Bell Const. Co. v. King
...incidental to his employment, the master will not be liable for the acts of negligence of the employee." Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Eudaly, 95 Ga.App. 644, 98 S.E.2d 235 (1957) ...
-
Price v. Star Service & Petroleum Corp., s. 44213
...Johnson v. Webb-Crawford Co., 89 Ga.App. 524, 80 S.E.2d 63; Johnson v. Brant, 93 Ga.App. 44, 90 S.E.2d 587; Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Eudaly, 95 Ga.App. 644, 98 S.E.2d 235; Sparks v. Buffalo Cab Co., Inc., 113 Ga.App. 528, 148 S.E.2d 919; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Skinner,......
-
Harper v. Brown
...use was purely personal to Harper. See also Code § 105-108; McGuire v. Gem City Motors, D.C., 296 F.Supp. 541; Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, v. Eudaly, 95 Ga.App. 644, 98 S.E.2d 235; Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 77 S.E. 618. Since the evidence demands a conclusion that Harper was on a pure......