Raley v. Hatcher, 27856.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1940
• Docket Number: No. 27856.,27856.
• Citation: 7 S.E.2d 777
• Parties: RALEY. v. HATCHER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

7 S.E.2d 777

RALEY.

v.HATCHER.

No. 27856.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

March 6, 1940.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. "If one of the owners singly employs a chauffeur and has the sole control of his conduct at the time of an accident, the co-owner is not charged with liability."

2. If the father was the sole owner of the car and the son was over 21 years of age and was not a member of the family within the meaning of the family car doctrine, a mere loan of the car by the father to the son was in principle the same as if he had loaned it to a friend to go on a mission solely for the benefit of the friend and would in fact make the son a mere bailee and if the son's chauffeur or driver injured some one on the trip, the father would not be liable.

3. The evidence did not authorize the verdict.

Error from City Court of Richmond County; Gordon W. Chambers, Judge.

Suit by Bessie Hatcher against J. M. Raley for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Reversed.

Isaac S. Peebles, Jr., of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

J. Paul Stephens and Claud R. Caldwell, both of Augusta, for defendant in error.

MacINTYRE, Judge.

Bessie Hatcher brought suit against the defendant, J. M. Raley, for alleged personal injuries caused by the negligent driving of an automobile belonging to the defendant by one Leon Osborne, as agent of the defendant, into another automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as a passenger. The verdict was for the plaintiff. The defend-ant's motion for new trial as amended was overruled, and he excepts.

The evidence in this case was to the effect that the plaintiff was injured by a car driven by one Osborne, who the defendant claimed was the chauffeur or driver of the defendant's son. That the son owned the car jointly with his father and had the sole control over the chauffeur's and driver's conduct at the time of the accident. The evidence also disclosed that the salesman who sold the car testified that he sold it to the father and son jointly. The father testified that this was true but that he gave the car in for taxes as his property and in has own name alone, and his application for a license tag was made out and signed by him alone. He further testified that the son paid one-half of the taxes and one-half the license fee for obtaining a license tag and that it was all done in his name merely for convenience and that in truth and in fact the son was the joint owner, Owning one-half interest in the car. The son's testimony corroborated that of his father. They both testified that at the time of the accident, the driver of the car was obtained by the son and was under the sole control of the son. Neither of the joint owners was in the car at the time of the accident. Osborne alone was driving the car and immediately after the accident he notified the father who came to the scene of the accident.

In the case of joint ownership of a motor vehicle, where there is no express statute on the subject, such ownership does not render one of such persons liable when the machine is operated by the other in his personal affairs. 7-8 Huddy's Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, p. 368 (81). "It has been held that where two persons jointly own an automobile and employ a chauffeur and practically have an equal right to the use of the machine and the services of such chauffeur, both of such joint owners are liable for the negligence of the chauffeur although at the time of the accident only one of the owners is enjoying the use of the machine." 7-8...