Steedley v. Snowden

• Decision Date: 01 March 1976
• Docket Number: No. 3,No. 51532,51532,3
• Parties: Margie STEEDLEY et al. v. Joseph SNOWDEN
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 703

225 S.E.2d 703

138 Ga.App. 155

Margie STEEDLEY et al. v. Joseph SNOWDEN.

No. 51532.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 3.

March 1, 1976.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1976.

Reinhardt, Whitley & Sims, Glenn Whitley, Joe Gray, Tifton, for appellants.

W. Ward Newton, Lyons, for appellee.

QUILLIAN, Judge.

This case involves 3 separate complaints for damages arising out of an automobile collision. The three plaintiffs, guest passengers in a vehicle driven by the husband of one of the plaintiffs, received injuries when they were allegedly forced off the road by defendant's vehicle. The trial resulted in verdicts for the defendant. From the resulting judgments entered thereon appeal was taken. Held:

1. The first two enumerations of error are as follows: (1) The trial court erred in instructing the jury to the effect that under the evidence in the case, a question of fact existed as to whether or not the appellant passengers were guilty of contributory negligence. (2) The trial court erred in instructing the jury upon the principle of law of comparative negligence. In both instances it is contended that such charges are inapplicable and erroneous with regard to the plaintiffs who were guest passengers.

The first instruction complained of reads as follows: 'I charge you that while the negligence of the host is not imputable to the guest, the guest cannot close his eyes to known or obvious dangers arising either from the acts of the driver or from the acts of others, and the guest in an automobile cannot at all times treat himself as dead freight, but when negligence on the part of the driver arises must act as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the same or similar circumstances.'

The second instruction states: 'Under the Code, if the injury was primarily due to the negligence of the defendant, the right of the plaintiffs is not defeated, even though but for the concurring negligence of the plaintiffs the injury might not have resulted, but the plaintiffs' recovery should be diminished in proportion to the degree in which their negligence contributed to the injuries. For the apportionment of damages according to the relative fault of the parties there seems to be no standard more definite than the enlightened opinion of the jury.'

In determining the issues we consider the following principles of law. 'The negligence of the driver and owner of a private vehicle, who, by such negligence, contributes to causing a collision with a locomotive, is not imputable to another person riding by invitation in the vehicle, unless that person had some right or was under some duty to control or influence the driver's conduct. Such right might arise by reason of the two being engaged at the time in a joint enterprise for their common benefit; and, if this were not so, the duty might arise from know or obvious incompetency of the driver, resulting from drunkenness or other cause.' Roach v. W. & A.R. Co., 93 Ga. 785(4), 21 S.E. 67. Accord: Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coxwell, 93 Ga.App. 159, 164, 91 S.E.2d 135; Beadles v. Bowen, 106 Ga.App. 34, 38(4), 126 S.E.2d 254; Dowling v. Camden County, 113 Ga.App. 34(2), 146 S.E.2d 925; Williams v. Ga. Power Co., 233 Ga. 517, 520, 212 S.E.2d 348. See Stroud v. Willingham, 126 Ga.App. 156, 160, 190 S.E.2d 143.

" A joint enterprise by two persons riding in an automobile along a public highway, the engagement in which will impute the negligence in operating the automobile of one of the persons, who is the driver, to the other person, must be a joint enterprise in controlling, directing, and governing the operation and running of the automobile, and not merely a joint interest in the objects and purposes of the trip." Hare v. Southern R. Co., 61 Ga.App. 159, 160, 6 S.E.2d 65, 66. Even though one of the plaintiffs was the driver's wife the principle holds true that the driver's negligence is not imputable. See Holloway v. Mayor, etc., of Milledgeville, 35 Ga.App. 87(3), 132 S.E. 106, which held: 'While husbands are in fact frequently amenable to the commands of their wives, the law does not place the husband in such a subservient situation. While the husband, when operating an automobile in which the wife is riding, but which does not belong to her, may follow the wife's suggestions, and obey her commands as to the course to be pursued along the highway, such does not, as a matter of law, constitute the husband the agent of the wife, or establish such a relationship between them as to impute to the wife the negligence of the husband on operating the automobile.' Accord: Fuller v. Mills, 36 Ga.App. 357, 136 S.E. 807; McCord v. Benford, 48 Ga.App. 738(2), 173 S.E. 208; Southern R. Co. v. King, 128 Ga. 383(1), 57 S.E. 687.

"No duty devolves upon the guest passenger, who has no right or duty to control the operation of the automobile unless the circumstances are such that he is afforded a...