Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 34650
| Decision Date | 07 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 34650,34650,1 |
| Citation | 89 Ga.App. 116,78 S.E.2d 871 |
| Parties | WINDSOR v. CHANTICLEER & CO |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The evidence did not authorize the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial on the general grounds.
2. The judgment of the trial court being reversed because the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict, the special ground of the motion for a new trial is not considered.
Chanticleer and Company sued George W. Windsor for damages alleged to have been inflicted to the plaintiff's truck by a truck of the defendant, allegedly driven by the defendant's agent and servant while acting within the scope of his employment. It was alleged that the defendant knew, prior to employing the servant who was operating his truck at the time the plaintiff's truck was damaged, that the driver had no driver's license and had a prior criminal record. The nature of the criminal record was not disclosed by the petition. The defendant filed an answer denying liability. On the trial the evidence made substantially the following case: The defendant had in his employ one Jesse Leo Rhodes. He was not a truck driver for the defendant and had never driven a truck for him before. The defendant did not inquire as to whether he had a driver's license or not, but in the afternoon on the day of the collision turned his Chevrolet truck over to Rhodes and two other of his employees at a point 'about a mile out of Monticello on the Forsyth road,' and told them to take the truck to his sawmill camp, which was 6.7 miles south of Monticello on the Forsyth road, and let it stay in the camp. The collision in question occurred on the road between Monticello and Mansfield while the defendant's truck was being driven in a northerly direction and away from Monticello and the sawmill camp, at a point some 12 or 14 miles from the camp where the defendant had instructed Rhodes to drive the truck, and at 11:30 or 12 o'clock at night. Forsyth and the sawmill camp mentioned are to the south or southwest of Monticello, while Mansfield and the scene of the collision are to the north. The defendant testified without contradiction that neither Rhodes nor any of his employees who were with him at the time he turned the truck over to them had any authority from him or business of his requiring them or the truck to be at the scene of the collision. The defendant admitted that he knew that Rhodes had a prison record before he came to work for him. The evidence as to the collision showed that the defendant's truck, while meeting the plaintiff's truck, was being operated on the left side of the road, ran the plaintiff's truck off of the road, and collided with it, causing severe damage to both vehicles. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $2,500; the defendant made a motion for new trial, on the general grounds and one special ground, which was denied, and the exception here is to that order.
Joseph G. Faust, Greensboro, Kay Tipton, Madison, T. J. Long, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
E. B. Judge, Atlanta, Edward P. Brown, Greensboro, for defendant in error.
1. As may be seen from the resume of the evidence, there was absolutely no basis upon which the defendant could be held liable on the theory of respondeat superior. While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 43155
...41, 32 S.E.2d 836; Fambro v. Sparks, 86 Ga.App. 726, 72 S.E.2d 473; Cooley v. Tate, 87 Ga.App. 1, 73 S.E.2d 72; Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga.App. 116, 78 S.E.2d 871; Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v. Eudaly, 95 Ga.App. 644, 98 S.E.2d 235; Brennan v. National NuGrape Co., 106 Ga.App. 709, ......
-
Brown v. Sheffield
...502, 15 S.E.2d 895; Burks v. Green, 85 Ga.App. 327, 69 S.E.2d 686; Gay v. Healan, 88 Ga.App. 533(4), 77 S.E.2d 47; Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga.App. 116, 78 S.E.2d 871; Caskey v. Underwood, 89 Ga.App. 418, 79 S.E.2d 558; Medlock v. Barfield, 90 Ga.App. 759, 84 S.E.2d 113; Garver v. S......
-
Willis v. Hill, 42881
...331, 69 S.E.2d 686; Mason v. Powell, 92 Ga.App. 496, 88 S.E.2d 734; Crisp v. Wright, 56 Ga.App. 338, 192 S.E. 390; Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga.App. 116, 78 S.E.2d 871; Myrick v. Alexander, 101 Ga.App. 1, 5, 112 S.E.2d 697; Jones v. Dixie Drive It Yourself System, Atlanta Co., Inc., ......
-
Butts v. Davis, 47045
...v. Peaslee-Gaulbert &c. Co., 60 Ga.App. 897, 5 S.E.2d 598; Etheridge v. Guest, 63 Ga.App. 637, 12 S.E.2d 483; Windsor v. Chanticleer & Co., 89 Ga.App. 116, 78 S.E.2d 871; and Brown v. Sheffield, 121 Ga.App. 383, 173 S.E.2d 891. See also Western & A.R. v. Reed, 35 Ga.App. 538, 544, 134 S.E. ......