Johnson v. Brant
| Decision Date | 17 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | 35698,No. 2,Nos. 35697,s. 35697,2 |
| Parties | Frances M. JOHNSON v. Mrs. Lawrence BRANT, Administratrix. S. E. JOHNSON v. Mrs. Lawrence BRANT, Administratrix |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The owner of an automobile is not liable for negligence in the operation of the machine when it is loaned to another and is used for the personal business of the borrower, nothing more appearing, since under such circumstances the borrower is a mere bailee whose negligence is not imputable to the owner.
Actions for damages were filed in the Superior Court of Bulloch County by Frances M. Johnson, a minor, and by her father Sidney E. Johnson, against Lawrence Brant, seeking money judgments for injuries inflicted upon Frances M. Johnson as the result of an automobile collision. The petition allege that the defendant is the owner of the automobile in which the minor plaintiff was riding as a guest at the time she was injured; that the defendant purchased the car for use by himself and members of his family and for their pleasure, comfort and convenience; that he customarily allowed his minor son, Benjamin Brant, who resided with and was dependent upon the defendant, to use the automobile for such purposes; that when said son departed for college, the defendant permitted him to take the automobile with him and authorized him to use and enjoy it as he saw fit in order to promote his son's pleasure and enhance his prestige; that this authorization included permission for his son to lend the automobile to other persons; that on several occasions the son did lend the automobile to a fellow student. Joseph Kent III; that on September 26, 1952, the said Kent borrowed the automobile from the defendants' son for use by Kent during a date with a student at the Georgia State College for Women; that Kent also invited another couple, one of them being the plaintiff, to ride with them, and that, due to specified acts of negligence on the part of Kent she sustained the injuries for which she and her father in their respective petitions seek recovery. General demurrers to the petitions were sustained, and the exceptions are to these judgments.
Reese, Bennet & Gilbert, Brunswick, for plaintiffs in error.
Oliver, Davis & Maner, Savannah, for defendant in error.
It has been settled in this State since the decision in Griffin v. Russell, 144 Ga. 275, 87 S.E. 10, L.R.A.1916F, 216, and the further coverage of the subject in Hubert v. Harpe, 181 Ga. 168, 182 S.E. 167, that liability under the family-purpose doctrine rests upon the same principles of law as that governing master and servant or principal and agent. The Griffin case dealt with a minor child residing with the parent. The Hubert case dealt with an adult and self-sustaining son to whom the privilege of using a family car was furnished. These cases and the line of decisions predicated upon them clearly lay down the rule that a member of a family who injures another while using the car for his own purposes within the scope of the business for which the car is maintained--that is, the pleasure, comfort and convenience of a member of the family--renders the head of the family who furnishes such automobile liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In two cases this doctrine has been so applied as to permit recovery against the owner where the family member was not actually the driver, but where such member, with express or implied authority 'not only to ride in but to direct the operation of the car by others for his own pleasure', Golden v. Medford, 189 Ga. 614, 7 . s.E.2d 236, permitted another to actually drive the car while 'the son retained control, authority and direction over the automobile, and he remained in the automobile which was still in his possession, custody and control, and it was still being used when the collision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durrett v. Farrar
.... At the time of the collision, the automobile was being operated by Kent, a borrower, solely for his own purposes.' Johnson v. Brant, 93 Ga.App. 44, 47, 90 S.E.2d 587, 589. Consequently, a mere showing that the vehicle was registered in the father's name and utilized by a family member is ......
-
Floyd v. Colonial Stores, Inc.
...of an independent contractor whose conduct was not imputable to plaintiff, Young v. Kickliter, 213 Ga. 42, 96 S.E.2d 605; Johnson v. Brant, 93 Ga.App. 44, 90 S.E.2d 587; Weiss v. Kling, 96 Ga.App. 618, 101 S.E.2d 179, and cases citted; and the fact that the plaintiff-owner was, on the invit......
-
Alterman v. Jinks, 45467
...to as a development of the doctrine of respondent superior. Doss v. Miller, 87 Ga.App. 230, 234, 73 S.E.2d 349; Johnson v. Brant, 93 Ga.App. 44, 46, 90 S.E.2d 587; Owens v. White, 103 Ga.App. 459, 460, 119 S.E.2d The fellow servant doctrine is of course an exception or departure from the re......
-
Price v. Star Service & Petroleum Corp., s. 44213
...S.E.2d 865; Ruff v. Gazaway, 82 Ga.App. 151, 60 S.E.2d 467; 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......