Kennedy v. Manis

• Decision Date: 05 May 1933
• Docket Number: No. 22736.,22736.
• Citation: 169 S.E. 319,46 Ga.App. 808
• Parties: KENNEDY. v. MANIS et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

46 Ga.App. 808

169 S.E. 319

KENNEDY.

v.MANIS et al.

No. 22736.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

May 5, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

Under the "family purpose doctrine, " a parent is responsible for the negligent operation of an automobile operated for comfort and pleasure of the family, by an adult son or daughter living with the parent as a member of the family, where the automobile is furnished to the family and such members for the convenience, use, and pleasure of members of the family.

Error from Superior Court, Whitfield County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.

Suit by B. L. Kennedy against Tom Manis and another. To review a judgment sustaining the general demurrer, and dismissing the petition as to named defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Suit was filed against Tom Manis and his daughter, Lucile Manis. The petition alleged that Tom Manis on the 9th day of January 1932, and prior thereto, owned a certain Chevrolet automobile which was maintained by him for the purpose of driving himself and for his family's convenience, use, and pleasure, and that his said daughter, Lucile, who was single and living at the home of her father, and was a member of the family accustomed to drive said car, operated said car by and with the knowledge and consent of her father, Tom Manis, on the 9th day of January, 1932, and that while operating such car on such date she negligently ran into and damaged petitioner in a named manner and amount. The petition was demurred to on the ground that no cause of action was set forth against Tom Manis. The court sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the petition as to Tom Manis, and the plaintiff excepted.

Wm. E. Mann and W. G. Mann, both of Dalton, for plaintiff in error.

Mitchell & Mitchell, of Dalton, for defendants in error.

GUERRY, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).

The question is presented whether or not the allegations of the petition were sufficient to show that Lucile Manis was operating the car for her own pleasure as a member of the family of Tom Manis at the time the accident occurred. The other and main question is whether under the family purpose doctrine as laid down in the case of Griffin v. Russell, 144 Ga. 275, 87 S. E. 10, 11, L. R. A. 1916F, 216, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 991, a father is liable for the actions of an adult daughter, single and living at the home of her father and a member of his family, accustomed to drive such family car, where injury to a third person results from the operation of such car by such adult daughter. It was held in that case that where a parent kept an automobile for the comfort and pleasure of his or her family and allowed a minor son to drive the same for the comfort and pleasure of himself and friends who were riding with him, such parent was liable for injury to third persons caused by the negligence of such minor son or daughter in the operation of the car. The Supreme Court in that case quoted approvingly this language: "It is the practice of parents to provide their children healthful and innocent amusements and recreations and, certainly, it is as much the duty of parentage to supervise and control the pleasures of their children as it is to give them nurture and education." This principle, called variously "family purpose doctrine, " "family service rule, " "family automobile doctrine, " has been judicially considered in practically every state in the Union. Liability under this rule in Georgia and in other states is not founded on the existence of a family re-lationship, but upon the principles of the law of agency, or master and servant. Quoting from the Griffin v. Russell Case again: "It may be taken as settled law in this state that a father is not liable for the tort of a minor child, with which he was in no way connected, which he did not ratify, and from which he did not derive any benefit, merely because of the relation of parent and child." However, when the head of the family makes it his "business" to entertain or furnish pleasure to members of his family, a liability arises under the law of principal and agent, and of master and servant. No hard and fast rule can be laid down to determine what is the "business" or "scope of employment" of a parent as applied to members of his family. See, in this connection, Lacey v. Forehand, 27 Ga. App. 347, 108 S. E. 247. It is now well settled in...