Gillespie v. Mullally
| Decision Date | 10 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | 14204. |
| Parties | GILLESPIE v. MULLALLY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
This case arises by reason of a suit to recover for an injury alleged to have been occasioned by the negligent driving of the automobile of the defendant, while being driven by an alleged servant of the defendant. After the introduction of evidence, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and it is upon this judgment that error is assigned. Held, it was not error for the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant. The evidence was positive that, at the time the car was being driven by the person alleged to be acting in behalf of the owner of the car, the same was being driven without the knowledge consent, or permission of the owner of the car. The evidence was further positive that the person driving the car was not in the employ of, nor under the control of, the owner of the car. The evidence was further positive that the car had been taken from the garage by the person driving it without the knowledge, permission, or consent of the owner of the car and without the knowledge, permission, or consent of the owner of the garage in which the car was stored. The driver of the car was not acting within the scope of his employment as such, and his act was not the act of the defendant in this case. The complaint of the court's ruling out of evidence the statement of the defendant that, "if it was my car that hit the boy, the insurance company is liable, and ought to pay the damages inflicted," was not reversible error if error at all. As has been said, the evidence was positive that the car was being driven without the knowledge permission, or consent of the defendant, and by a person who was not in his employ, and had no authority, express or implied, to drive the car. The mere proof of the ownership of the car which caused the injury is not sufficient of itself to establish prima facie that the car was being driven by a servant of the owner, about the owner's business and within the scope of his employment.
Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; Malcolm D. Jones, Judge.
Action by Emory Gillespie, by his next friend, against J. L. Mullally. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Powers & Powers, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Brock, Sparks & Russell, of Macon, for defendant in error.
Judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Sheffield
...618, supra; LaFitte v. Schunamann, 19 Ga.App. 799, 92 S.E. 295, supra; Garner v. Souders, 20 Ga.App. 242, 92 S.E. 965; Gillespie v. Mullally, 30 Ga.App. 118, 117 S.E. 98; McEntire v. King, 59 Ga.App. 865, 2 S.E.2d 195; Hodges v. Seaboard Loan & Savings Assn., 61 Ga.App. 443, 6 S.E.2d 133; B......
-
Wilson v. Quick Tire Serv.
...only to discuss the ruling stated in the second head-note. This case in its facts is somewhat similar to that of Gillespie v. Mullally, 30 Ga. App. 118, 117 S. E. 98. The first head-note in that case is as follows: "The evidence being positive and uncontradicted that when the defendant's au......
-
Wilson v. Quick Tire Service
... ... necessary only to discuss the ruling stated in the second ... headnote. This case in its facts is somewhat similar to that ... of Gillespie v. Mullally, 30 Ga.App. 118, 117 S.E ... 98. The first headnote in that case is as follows: ... "The evidence being positive and uncontradicted ... ...
-
Graham v. Cleveland
...is not liable for injuries proximately resulting from such negligence, merely because he is the owner of the vehicle. Gillespie v. Mullally, 30 Ga.App. 118, 117 S.E. 98; Wooley v. Doby, 19 Ga.App. 797, 92 S.E. 295; Lafitte v. Schunamann, 19 Ga.App. 799, 92 S.E. 295; Lewis v. Amorous, 3 Ga.A......