Limerick v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 07 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | 15407. |
| Citation | 124 S.E. 806,32 Ga.App. 755 |
| Parties | LIMERICK v. ROBERTS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the particular facts of this case, and in the light of the entire charge the court did not err, for any reason assigned, in instructing the jury as follows:
(a) "Now there is no question in this case as to any negligence on the part of Mr. Roberts Nobody contends or can contend under the evidence in this case that he was negligent."
(b) "I charge you further that if a servant or employee, while engaged in the business of his master, makes a slight deviation for ends of his own, the master remains liable when the act was so closely connected with the master's affairs that, though the servant may derive some benefit from it, it may nevertheless fairly be regarded as within the course of his employment." See Ryne v. Lieber's Farm Equipment Co., 107 Neb. 454, 460, 186 N.W. 358, and citations; Dowdell v. Beasley, 205 Ala. 130 (3), 87 So. 18; Fisick v. Lorber, 95 Misc. 574, 159 N.Y.S. 722(2); Gibson v. Dupree, 26 Colo. App. 324 (2), 144 P. 1133; Devine v. Ward Baking Co., 188 Ill.App. 590 (2); Jessen v. Peterson, 18 Cal.App. 350, 123 P. 219; Brimberry v. Dudfield Lumber Co., 183 Cal. 454 (2), 191 P. 894.
There is evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Error from City Court of Savannah; Davis Freeman, Judge.
Action by M. W. Roberts against F. E. Limerick. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Seabrook & Kennedy and E. A. McWhorter, both of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Connerat & Hunter, of Savannah, for defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coe v. Carroll & Carroll Inc.Coe v. Griffin Contracting Inc.
...a load of lumber for the employer each morning, to start work earlier and because it saved mileage on the truck.); Limerick v. Roberts, 32 Ga.App. 755, 124 S.E. 806 (1924) (The trial court correctly charged the jury that “if a servant or employee, while engaged in the business of his master......
-
Davis Gas Co. v. Powell, 52582
...servant may derive some benefit from it, it may nevertheless fairly be regarded as within the scope of his employment. Limerick v. Roberts, 32 Ga.App. 755, 124 S.E. 806; Jump v. Anderson, 58 Ga.App. 126, 197 S.E. 644. Where there is a deviation the question should ordinarily be submitted to......
-
Sanders v. Brown
...some benefit from it, it may nevertheless fairly be regarded as within the course of his employment.' [Cits.]" Limerick v. Roberts, 32 Ga.App. 755, 124 S.E. 806 (1924). "To bar a recovery it must appear that the mission was purely personal, disassociated from any business of the master. [Ci......
-
Macon Dairies Inc v. Duhart, 29774.
...was necessary for them to get breakfast in order to perform their duties to the best advantage. In this connection, see Limerick v. Roberts, 32 Ga.App. 755, 124 S.E. 806. But, in any event, the accident occurred after Brantley had bought and finished eating his breakfast, and while he was g......