Lee v. Swann
| Citation | 111 Ga.App. 88,140 S.E.2d 562 |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 41037,41037,3 |
| Parties | Alonzo B. LEE v. Donald M. SWANN |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Alford Wall, Hilton M. Fuller, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Wilson, Branch, Barwick & Vandiver, M. Cook Barwick, Thomas S. Bentley, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is a negligence action in which the plaintiff alleged that he was injured in a collision with a truck driven by the defendant's employee who was then intoxicated and did not have a driver's license, and that the defendant was negligent in entrusting his truck to his employee with knowledge that the employee was an incompetent driver. (The plaintiff does not contended that the defendant was liable for the acts of his employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior.). The plaintiff assigns error on the judgment of the trial court sustaining the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The defendant's deposition showed these facts: The defendant operated a business of selling and delivering supplies to restaurants and employed three truck drivers as delivery men. The defendant was informed when he employed the driver who collided with the plaintiff that this employee had had some drinking problems and some domestic problems and had lost a job; he asked the employee if he had a chauffeur's license and received an affirmative reply; he did not know that the employee had been convicted of traffic offenses and of driving while under the influence of intoxicants; and he did not check with official sources to learn whether or not the employee had a driver's license.
The facts in evidence did not prove that the defendant had actual knowledge that the driver was incompetent, which is essential to fix liability on an owner for furnishing his automobile to an incompetent driver; nor was there proof of circumstances that will admit of no other reasonable conclusion than that the defendant's denial of knowledge of the driver's incompetency is untrue. Roebuck v. Payne, 109 Ga.App. 525, 136 S.E.2d 399; Hines v. Bell, 104 Ga.App. 76, 84, 120 S.E.2d 892.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Sheffield
...123 S.E.2d 412; McKinney v. Burke, 108 Ga.App. 501, 133 S.E.2d 383; Roebuck v. Payne, 109 Ga.App. 525(2), 136 S.E.2d 399; Lee v. Swann, 111 Ga.App. 88, 140 S.E.2d 562; Porch v. Wright, 116 Ga.App. 138, 156 S.E.2d 532; Saunders v. Vikers, 116 Ga.App. 733(5, 6, 7), 158 S.E.2d 324; Ditmyer v. ......
-
Jones v. Cloud
...than constructive. Hines v. Bell, 104 Ga.App. 76(3b), 120 S.E.2d 892; Roebuck v. Payne, 109 Ga.App. 525, 136 S.E.2d 399; Lee v. Swann, 111 Ga.App. 88, 140 S.E.2d 562; Saunders v. Vikers, 116 Ga.App. 733, 158 S.E.2d 324.' Harris v. Smith, 119 Ga.App. 306, 167 S.E.2d 198. However, as indicate......
-
Ed Sherwood Chevrolet, Inc. v. McAuley
...the parties in the case sub judice. Defendant Ed Sherwood Chevrolet, Inc. contends that the correct test is set forth in Lee v. Swann, 111 Ga.App. 88, 140 S.E.2d 562. The Lee case imposes upon the plaintiff, in the case sub judice, the requirement that plaintiff's circumstantial evidence "a......
-
Harris v. Smith, 43884
...than constructive. Hines v. Bell, 104 Ga.App. 76(3b), 120 S.E.2d 892; Roebuck v. Payne, 109 Ga.App. 525, 136 S.E.2d 399; Lee v. Swann, 111 Ga.App. 88, 140 S.E.2d 562; Saunders v. Vikers, 116 Ga.App. 733, 158 S.E.2d On the issue of the defendant's knowledge of the driver's incompetency the f......