Landers v. Medford

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: NICHOLS
• Citation: Landers v. Medford, 133 S.E.2d 403, 108 Ga.App. 525 (Ga. App. 1963)
• Decision Date: 18 October 1963
• Docket Number: 40394,No. 2,Nos. 40375,s. 40375,2
• Parties: C. O. LANDERS v. Emma MEDFORD et al. Emma MEDFORD et al. v. C. O. LANDERS

Page 403

133 S.E.2d 403

108 Ga.App. 525

C. O. LANDERS v. Emma MEDFORD et al.

Emma MEDFORD et al. v. C. O. LANDERS.

Nos. 40375, 40394.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Oct. 18, 1963.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A minor over fourteen years of age is responsible for his wilful and wanton acts of vandalism.

2. The stepfather of a minor, under seventeen years of age, who is in the custody of his mother, is not liable under the Act of 1956 (Ga.L.1956, p. 699; Code Ann. § 105-113), for acts of vandalism of such minor.

3. The mother of a minor under seventeen years of age who has the custody of such child is liable under the Act of 1956, supra, for the wilful and wanton acts of vandalism of such child.

Charles O. Landers sued Ernest Medford, Mrs. Emma Medford and Joe Richard Stanley to recover damages arising from certain alleged acts of Joe Richard Stanley. A guardian ad litem was appointed for Joe Richard Stanley. The petition as amended alleged that Joe Richard Stanley is a minor over fourteen years of age and under seventeen years of age, the son of Mrs. Emma Medford and stepson of Ernest Medford, that the defendant Stanley at night, on April 6, 1963, secretly and without knowledge or consent of the plaintiff took the plaintiff's 1955 Chevrolet from his home and enticed and persuaded the plaintiff's minor son, age thirteen, to accompany him, that plaintiff's son is dominated by the defendant Stanley who is older, larger and stronger than the plaintiff's son, that the defendant Stanley proceeded to drive said automobile through the hours of night when he was too young to drive an automobile, knowing that he did not have the experience to drive an automobile, did not have a driver's license, was driving without the permission of the plaintiff and had persuaded and enticed the plaintiff's son to accompany him, and said Stanley drove the plaintiff's automobile at high and excessive rates of speed of sixty miles per hour and more over the public highways of the county, that said Stanley 'drove the said automobile towards Augusta, and turned said car around and proceeded on Wrightsboro Road, while in Columbia County, back into the direction of Grovetown, and he accelerated said automobile to a fast and excessive rate of speed of approximately sixty miles per hour, and while going around a curve, near Gould's shore, he drove said car to his left-land side of the highway and across the center line and into the left-hand lane and thence into the left-hand ditch causing same to strike the left-hand ditch and then the force of impact caused it to turn on its right side,' and that as a result of said collision the plaintiff's son was injured and his automobile wrecked. The petition further alleged that the plaintiff's injuries and damages were occasioned as a result of the willful and wanton misconduct of the defendant Stanley for which he and the other defendants are liable and responsible, and which were as follows: '(a). In secretly taking the plaintiff's automobile without permission, in the hours of darkness, when he was not old enough to drive an automobile, did not have a driver's license, and was too inexperienced to be in charge of an automobile. (b). In enticing the plaintiff's son who was of a younger age and subject to the dominance and persuasions of the said George Stanley to accompany him, as a result of which he was injured. (c). In driving said automobile at fast and excessive rates of speed; sixty miles per hour or more, and in undertaking to drive around a curve in the highway at such speed of sixty miles per hour, and in driving to his left-hand side of the highway and across same and into the left-hand ditch causing the car to overturn and as a result of which Charles Kerry Landers was injured.' It was also alleged that the acts committed by Stanley were with the intention and for the purpose of damaging the plaintiff's property, to-wit: his 1955 Chevrolet.

Each defendant filed general and special demurrers to the plaintiff's petition and on July 17, 1963 the trial court rendered a judgment sustaining the general demurrer of the defendant Ernest Medford and overruling those of the remaining defendants, Mrs. Emma Medford and Joe Richard Stanley. In case No. 40375 the plaintiff assigns error on the judgment sustaining the general demurrer of Ernest Medford and in case No. 40394 Mrs. Emma Medford and Joe Richard Stanley, through his guardian ad litem, assign error on the judgment overruling their general demurrers.

Randall Evans, Jr., Thomson, for C. O. Landers.

Congdon & Holley, R. Eugene Holley, William P. Congdon, Augusta, for Emma Medford and others.

NICHOLS, Presiding Judge.

1. The plaintiff's petition against the defendant Stanley set forth a cause of action for the injuries and damages alleged as a result of the willful and wanton acts charged to him in taking the plaintiff's automobile without permission and wrecking the same as well as for the injuries to the plaintiff's son who he allegedly enticed and persuaded to accompany him. See Code § 105-1806.

Only the defendants' general demurrers were passed upon by the trial court and no question is presented as to the sufficiency of the special demurrers attacking the petition for a misjoinder of causes of action and defendants since this court cannot rule upon questions not ruled upon by the trial court.

2. The Act of 1956 (Ga.L.1956, p. 699; Code Ann. § 105-113), on which the plaintiff's action against the mother and stepfather is based reads as follows: 'An Act to provide that the parent having the custody and control of a minor child or children under the age of seventeen shall be liable for the wilful and wanton acts of...