Styles v. Dennard, 37048
Decision Date | 29 April 1958 |
Docket Number | 2,No. 37048,Nos. 1,37048,s. 1 |
Citation | 97 Ga.App. 635,104 S.E.2d 258 |
Parties | C. B. STYLES v. J. L. DENNARD et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a number of individuals, each licensed to own and operate a taxicab individually or by an employee, jointly make use of the same trade name but each conducts his separate business and pays a fixed sum for the use of a cab stand, telephone facilities, and employee in charge of the same, nothing more appearing, such persons are not joint venturers or partners so as to charge one with the torts of another.
2. One who, through the use of such a trade name, operates his individual taxicab business, employing a driver to drive the taxicab for him on a commission basis, is liable for injuries tortiously inflicted by such driver upon a passenger, although the driver, after he had accepted the plaintiff as a passenger and before he actually set out to take him to his destination, transferred such passenger from the owner's vehicle to a substitute automobile not in fact licensed as a taxicab, the passenger having no knowledge that the substitution of vehicles was in any way irregular.
Charlie Styles filed an action for damages for personal injuries in the Superior Court of Fulton County, alleging that the defendants James Dennard and Thomas L. Griggs owned and operated a fleet of taxicabs under the trade name of Quick Service Trips; that Robert Thomas, driver of the taxicab in which the plaintiff was injured, was the agent of the defendants; that the defendants, in response to a telephone call from the plaintiff, sent the taxicab to a used car lot where the plaintiff was waiting; that the plaintiff informed the driver, Thomas, he desired to go to Buford, Georgia; that Thomas agreed; that it was necessary to go by the defendants' office and obtain another taxicab as the cab Thomas was the driving had a bad tire; that Thomas went to the office, obtained another taxicab, and instructed the plaintiff to transfer to this cab; that they proceeded toward Buford, and Thomas lost control of the car and cut sharply into the left-hand traffic land directly in front of an oncoming motor truck, causing a collision from which the plaintiff received serious and permanent injuries. The answers of Dennard and Griggs admitted that they each operated a taxicab but each denied that he operated any taxicabs in conjunction with any other person, denied that the driver of the car was his agent and denied that he had any interest in or control over the car in which the plaintiff was injured. On the trial the jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds which was amended by the addition of 19 special grounds, and the denial of this motion is assigned as error.
Walter B. Fincher, Glyndon C. Pruitt, Atlanta, J. Ray Merritt, Buford, for plaintiff in error.
Reuben A. Garland, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. Thomas Griggs testified in part: This testimony is undisputed, and is supported by like testimony on the part of Dennard and Harris, President of the Atlanta Car for Hire Association. When taken in connection with other undisputed facts to the effect that the plaintiff was injured in a car which did not belong to Griggs and in which he had no interest, which was driven by Robert Thomas, a man employed by Dennard but not Griggs to drive Dennard's taxicab, and in the absence of any testimony showing either that Griggs and Dennard were jointly engaged in the operation of a common business, or that either Dennard or Thomas was under the direction of or shared any agency relation with Griggs, a verdict was demanded in favor of the latter. The motion for a new trial was properly denied as to Thomas Griggs.
2. As to the defendant Dennard, the above testimony plus other undisputed evidence demands a finding that he was one of the several taxicab owners and operators, members of Atlanta Car for Hire Association, operating out of the stand and under the name of Quick Service Trips; that his automobile had received from municipal authorities a car for hire permit which allowed it to be used as a taxicab; that Robert Thomas had a taxi permit which licensed him to drive Dennard's taxicab; that he had been for a considerable time employed by Dennard to drive Dennard's taxicab, and that he owned an automobile which was not licensed as a taxicab. The evidence is undisputed that on the day in question the plaintiff requested that a taxicab be summoned for him by telephone and shortly thereafter one arrived and he entered the taxicab owned by Dennard and driven by Thomas, with the words 'Quick Service Trips' or at least 'Quick something' written ten on it, and that the plaintiff desired this transportation for the purpose of being taken by the Union Station to collect his baggage and then on to Buford, Georgia; that this taxicab was such a taxi as could be legally driven to Buford, Georgia, and that Thomas was authorized by Dennard to take passengers to Buford. Thomas was unauthorized to take passengers anywhere except as agent and driver for Dennard. Thomas first drove to the stand of Quick Service Trips, and Styles testified without objection or contradiction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. Atlanta Veterans Transp., Inc., 41930
...of it can arise from the lettering on the vehicle. The operation may have been similar to that which appeared in Styles v. Dennard, 97 Ga.App. 635, 104 S.E.2d 258 or Atlanta Car for Hire Assn., Inc. v. Ware, 112 Ga.App. 668(2), 145 S.E.2d 813. Indeed, it has been held, concerning an automob......
-
Collins v. Booker
...the city for its operation, paid the operating expenses, and kept the fares received from transporting passengers. See Styles v. Dennard, 97 Ga.App. 635, 104 S.E.2d 258 and Atlanta Car for Hire Association, Inc. v. Ware, 112 Ga.App. 668, 145 S.E.2d 813, holding this type of arrangement to b......
-
Atlanta Car for Hire Ass'n v. Ware
...clear chance to avoid the collision, but had failed to exercise it, a different situation would be presented. 2. In Styles v. Dennard, 97 Ga.App. 635(1), 104 S.E.2d 258, a case also involving an Atlanta cab stand and the Atlanta Car for Hire Association, Inc., it was stated: Where a number ......
-
Dennard v. Styles
...defendant Dennard and that the trial court erred in overruling plaintiff's motion for new trial on the general grounds. Styles v. Dennard, 97 Ga.App. 635, 104 S.E.2d 258. On the second appearance this court affirmed the trial court's grant of a new trial on the general grounds following a j......