Ousley Co. v. Ledbetter
| Decision Date | 15 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 21870. |
| Parties | OUSLEY CO. v. LEDBETTER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus OPINION.
Owner who through agent delivered automobile truck to mechanic for repairs, held not liable for injury resulting from mechanic's negligent operation while testing it (Civ Code 1910, § 4414).
The owner of the truck should not be held liable for the injury inflicted through mechanic's negligent operation thereof since the mechanic was merely an independent contractor and the repairs were left entirely to his judgment, and it did not appear that the owner's agent was riding in the truck or exercising any control over the mechanic's operation thereof during the test.
Where statutory law of foreign state is not pleaded, court will follow common law as construed by Georgia courts.
Error from City Court of Valdosta; J. G. Cranford, Judge.
Action by D. H. Ledbetter against the Ousley Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Reversed.
Wilcox, Connell & Wilcox, of Valdosta, for plaintiff in error.
Little & Dickerson, of Valdosta, for defendant in error.
1. "The employer generally is not responsible for torts committed by his employee when the latter exercises an independent business, and in it is not subject to the immediate direction and control of the employer." Civ. Code 1910, § 4414.
2. Where the owner of an automobile truck, through his agent and driver, delivers it to a mechanic for the purpose of repair, and surrenders the entire control of it to him, the mechanic is not the servant of the owner, but an independent contractor. Where the mechanic, under such circumstances, negligently injures another while testing the truck, the owner is not liable in an action for damages for the injury; and the fact that the test was being made with the consent and by the direction of the agent of the owner does not change the rule, it not appearing that the agent was riding in the truck or exercising any control over the mechanic's operation of it during the test. Wooley v. Doby, 19 Ga.App. 797(1), 92 S.E. 295, and cit. See also Simril v. Davis, 42 Ga.App. 277, 155 S.E. 790.
3. In the instant case, the amended petition, construed most strongly against the plaintiff, shows that the regular driver of the truck, while on a trip to Florida, delivered it to the mechanic for the purpose of being repaired; that the repairs were left...
To continue reading
Request your trial