*1 brother, you If I told that he had a twin quite positive. has been possibility admit that a twin brother could have you would attorney’s objection . .” The district committed the. there was no evidence in the case question ground on the brother, had a twin was sustained. Defense the defendant state in his that he to offer the place expected counsel did not to meet in his necessary deficiency hypothetical in the A supply subsequently the evidence trial. question cross ex- question nonexpert witness on hypothetical State, Bryant amination must be based on facts in evidence. State, 641, Callahan v. J., Pannell, J., Eberhardt, P. Judgment concur. affirmed. Argued November Decided November III, A lex L. Zipperer, appellant. for Jr., McGlasson, Ryan,
Andrew J. District A. Attorney, Howard Jr., appellee. for FARRAR; 48224. DURRETT and vice versa.
48225. FARRAR v. FULLER.
48226. DURRETT FARRAR. Judge. opinion arising This covers four out a trial Clark, appeals of wrongful death action three defendants. Polly Mrs. Farrar for 21-year-old sued the death of her son who was killed riding while as a in a Volkswagen being driven at a man, high speed another young Dangler, William Bruce when speeding car crashed into a tree. The driver also died at scene. Title to the automobile was in D. placed C. Durrett at the Durrett, time it was purchased Debra S. his 20-year-old daughter, being age. due to her The three defendants were Durrett, doctrine, who was sued under the family purpose daughter, against whom liability claimed both the basis entrustment, agency negligent and of and the administrator alleged negligence operating the deceased driver death vehicle. parties respective postures,
We will refer these their thusly: father, plaintiff passenger, daughter, defendant defendant A defendant driver. trial ended in a verdict three-day finding directed for the defendant father and the in favor for new Plaintiff filed a motion defendants. of the other both subsequently first The trial amended. trial which granted general grounds to the defendant a new trial on daughter Thereafter, he vacated this motion alone. again ruling discretionary order. In this he entered a new defendant alone but trial as to the a new special grounds *2 doing specified on the basis of three he did so so jury alleged involving solely which dealt in his errors grounds daughter. of the new All other the defendant with trial motion were overruled. young tragic of a men were the climax of the two
The deaths party Fourth-of-July at the Atlanta Yellow Umbrella week-end daughter by young apartments three women. Defendant hosted plaintiff passenger together and defendant driver with Debra were participated many guests, among of whom all knowledge beverages. disputed by drinking A fact was alcoholic plaintiff passenger defendant of the number upon defendant driver and effect of libations imbibed ability Testimony attendant from to drive. of a service station they young en route of the two men while were his observation to their ill-fated as to whether shortly question destiny a was sufficient to create they of intoxicants were under the influence they met their death. before dispute whether defendant driver had defendant
Also Volkswagen daughter’s permission for a mission on to use the hamburgers. testimony Her was to the her behalf obtain keys contrary taken from a window and that her car had been knowledge. jury’s sill her wishes and without her accepted of fact her version. verdict indicated these arbiters disputed a contention that defendant driver had Another fact was police panicked by an unmarked vehicle while chased plaintiff argued prevented application assumption which possibility himself risk since he did not have extricate during previous stop at which would have been the situation the service station. of verdict Plaintiff enumerated as error the court’s direction daughter’s argues that defendant
for defendant father. Plaintiff hamburgers alleged dispatching action in defendant driver for placed family the car under her control and therefore within purpose doctrine. 1), 694 SE2d we said:
In Finnochio v. Lunsford, " family purpose qualify provider 'In as a under the order to mover, one who intends principal doctrine one must be thing, particular others for another provide automobile, responsibility to see steps takes on his own transaction, substantially and contributes consummation without expectation end of his own means toward C. Simpson, Smith v. N. compensation,’ reimbursement 474)... It to remember however important 'To liability. in and of itself create ownership will not [Citations.] deprive ownership” "based mere would any recovery allow law, due would property process the defendant of without compel and would recovery liability, authorize without Cone, without fault.’ Frankel v. payment Lazarus, Koutras 106).” authority
"The factor such cases is and control of principal vehicle, is not determined title to the necessarily and this payment expenses operation. vehicle or for the Baker v. . . if it Even were Shockey, vehicle, conceded that defendant was the owner of the the case turn as it would not point, disprove would not on this showing emancipated uncontradicted that the son as an *3 did exercise exclusive right authority minor had Eaves, 756, control over the vehicle.” Calhoun v. "Where, here, only driver is a bailment, borrower and the transaction is a there is no only liability respondeat superior. under the doctrine of The fact [Cits.] the son had a to use the car as he pleased for his own father, purposes is not sufficient to make his the defendant owner, liable the son lent the car to where another under where, circumstances had the defendant himself lent the car to such other he would not be liable. can Nor we find where the allegation that the father entrusted the automobile with his son 'to his promote pleasure prestige’ said son’s and to enhance his case, strengthens it granting might enhance the son’s prestige to lend his automobile to his fellow students. It is not available, the motive of the defendant making automobile it put use to which which determines ... At liability collision, the time of the being operated automobile was by Kent, borrower, Brant, a solely purposes.” for his own Johnson v. a mere Consequently, showing registered the vehicle was the father’s name and utilized a member family alone not Defendant purpose a car. family this to be sufficient to establish use of the car and that had exclusive testified she daughter father’s name and not hers was title was her sole reason (T. 48). She further enough not old because she was simply its placed upon her father had restriction specific testified to a And places. it times and certain "I take at certain use: could (T. me.” wasn’t, except to drive supposed I nobody evidence, of the of this the nature no contradiction being There Pritchett ruling within the brought the case restriction 639): Williams, there are no "When of a family to show that the owner facts sufficient particular delegate a member to family automobile authorized purpose automobile, is not liable for the owner authority to drive of the automobile another arising operation out of the injuries of and for the convenience and comfort person request at the and control.” As presence member but outside his family the event within the proof bring there was not sufficient daughter and as defendant testified she purpose doctrine family to drive the car and since she was not permitted alone was incident, the court properly in the car at the time present a for defendant father. directed verdict in which appeal 2. In case No. there is cross defendant enumerates as error the court’s denial of defendant daughter there daughter’s motions for directed verdict based relationship, no credible or entrustment any agency that if negligence, negligent no evidence of she had been guest passenger’s contributory negligence later exonerated her. phases, proper deny As factual issues existed on these this motion and submit these matters determination. Ann. 81A-150. Code § manner assignment Another of error attacks the which the trial as to original grant
court vacated its new defendant general grounds alone on substituted new order grounds dealing alleged with errors in the specifying special jury charge.
"The first of a new trial shall not be disturbed *4 granted court if said new trial is in the discretion of
appellate
plaintiff
on
unless the
in error shall
judge
general grounds,
granting
his discretion in
it and that
judge
show that
abused
require
notwithstanding
the law and
the verdict
facts
Ann.
6-1608.
since
judgment
Clearly,
of the trial court...” Code
§
the court’s
grant
general grounds
of a new trial on
was within
grant
vacating
timely
also within the
of such
discretion, the
showing
Therefore,
in the absence
court’s discretion.
jurisdiction, and
lack of
discretion or
trial court’s
of the
abuse
support
verdict,
here,
to
where,
was some evidence
there
as
timely taken which vacated
the order
not review
this court will
the
general grounds.
grant
discretionary
See
on
of a new trial
Gilbert,
217 Ga.
Dunn v.
original
order for
withdrew his
the trial
4.It
is obvious
grounds
particular
specifying
purpose
which
the
motivated his
requisite
his issuance
decision. With
appellate court
he entrusted
certificate
immediate review
ruling.
practice
duty
pass
This
the correctness of
to
Supreme
judges
and the
as our court
is to be commended
trial
power
possess
of a new trial when
to review
Court
the order is
special grounds.
§§
Ann.
6-1608 and
Code
limited to
(c);
Matthews,
104 Ga.
v.
81A-150
Rice
(1)(197
Thomason,
States,
Inc. v.
Southern
trial to
to the effect of a new
address ourselves
5.We next
involving joint tortfeasors.
in a case
limited to one defendant
(a)
determination,
presents
questions
Does
This
two
granted
against
have
the new trial
whom
co-defendant
standing
judicial
complain
release of the other
as to the
to
Logic
that he should have the
would indicate
defendant?
Perry,
early
Simpson
complain
case of
v.
since the
involving joint
Georgia
rule has been that
suits
our
damages.
any apportionment See
there cannot be
tortfeasors
154)
Gazaway
Nicholson,
345, 348 SE2d
where
Supreme
overrule the former
to review and
Court declined
adopt
Nevertheless,
are not authorized
decisions.
we
Supreme
personal
principle
ideas where our
the basis of our
binding
§ Ann. 2-3708. Such a
ruled otherwise. Code
Court has
Munday,
ruling
Our
authorities
revolves around
joint
whether the verdict is
all of the
tortfeasors.
*5
Co.,
App.
R.
Finley
stated
Southern
rule is
general
312)
sue several
joint
a
can
plaintiff
to be that
SE
one and release
and can bind
in the same action
tortfeasors
authorize,
if the verdict be
but
may
as the evidence
others
in a
tort
participating
joint
all the defendants
rendered against
Nelson,
Thus, in
Smith
single.
thereon is
the judgment
332)
(5) (182
was based
judgment
the verdict and
App. 712
of
action
joint
evidence
supported
a
tort
upon
joint
trial
grant
the
of a new
our court ruled
so that
the defendants
required
defendant alone
as to one
errors committed
upon
based
the codefendant.
grant
trial
include
that
the new
defendants,
it
permissible
the
is
verdict is
When the
/brail
applicable
peculiarly
defendant as to errors
a new trial as to one
in the
the co-defendant
and decline to continue
to that defendant
out
pointed
element was
differentiating
trial. This
subsequent
Rapid Express,
Townsend in Hawkins
Benton
Judge
the late
Inc.,
Supreme
the
Similarly
Butler,
6. "If a from is in a condition which renders incapable operating proper him with [an automobile] skill, this is diligence palpably apparent known one car, is a fact which entering may proved facts, along light consideration of the with other to throw jury, question person on the of whether exercised care ordinary such car, entering remaining the car or reference while to his in it.” Berry, conduct Powell v.
SE LRA 1917A judice support Sub there was evidence to the verdict for both Plaintiff driver riding defendants. with defendant apartment joint after with him at with party comsumption intoxicating beverages; his election to remain in during stop the car he had an to leave a at a opportunity when station; refusing join service and the fact of a third them party enough support due to their intoxication constituted assumption of the risk.
"There is no better established rule of law than negligence, diligence, gross negligence slight diligence, even are fact,
questions by to be determined and not the court. jury, Further, verdict, jury where returns and it has the [Cit.] appeal of the trial on that verdict approval judge, must be verdict, if it. support affirmed there is 'After a in its light the evidence is construed most favorable to the prevailing party, every presumption and inference is in favor Moore, Kirkland v. of the verdict.’ [Cits.]” Therefore, vacating the trial court did not err in its order for a new
trial on general grounds for defendant car owner nor in denying motion for a passenger’s general grounds new trial on as to defendant driver.
7. Plaintiff passenger enumerates as error the failure of the trial comparative negligence did although plaintiff
not request charge. plaintiff alleges such "Where a injury an through own, was sustained him no fault of his but was caused defendant, wholly by negligence the trial court is not bound, in the absence of an appropriate request plaintiff, to charge the as to the law of contributory negligence and Co., Tucker Central Ga. R. apportionment damages.” Ga. 387 "When the issue of reducing damages under the comparative negligence doctrine of is not raised by the *7 pleadings, the court’s omission give to an instruction on this issue, therefor, proper request the absence of a will not necessitate a reversal where the law on the of subject negligence recover, right affects the to plaintiff’s and the of the favor, defendant have verdict rendered his has been and Big substantially fairly submitted to the jury. [Cits.]” Co., &c. Apple Market v. W. J. Milner & App. 111 Ga. 288 (141 567). SE2d
"The charge plaintiff’s of the court as to failure to exercise care
for her safety go own was not erroneous because of failure to further charge request comparative negligence and without as to Kerns v. 158 Crawford, damages. App. diminution of 51 Ga. (3) (179 854).” Rossville, City Malone v. SE 107 271 App. Ga. of (3) (129 563). passenger assigns charge Plaintiff as error the trial court’s recharge ordinary assumption on care and of risk in that he did not further charge knowledge part "that mere on the of a intoxicating drinking has been the driver passenger law, person not, knowledge such as a matter of beverages as not to be able influence of intoxicants much under the is so make the so as to ordinary efficiency, safely drive or with own safety, care ordinary of such lack of guilty the driver risk, recovery as will bar a of assumption Since gross negligence.” the driver’s for death occasioned object and did not request charge not this at the trial did plaintiff addition, rights he has waived his this charge without 70-207 Code Ann. appeal. on See standing complain has no § Duncan, (a) 630, 638 App. and Nathan Ga. erroneous, of the being correct statements are not charges care ordinary on exercise charge plaintiffs
legal principle;
City
in Malone v.
of Rossville,
having
approved
been
(3) (179
Kerns Crawford,
563);
assumption of the risk
854);
charge
plaintiffs
and the
SE
Hogan,
R. Co. v.
307 439). (2) (172 Atlanta, City 32 SE2d of 9. Plaintiff enumerates as error the failure of the trial statutes, to charge court certain motor vehicle those Code 68-1625, 68-1626, Ann. 68-1640. there no request As §§ charge and as these not particular these statutes statutes were in the nor pleaded complaint alleged was violation thereof as se, negligence no was committed. "It error per error is not to omit from the of the court of Code provisions section a request they without therefor unless affect an issue made both pleadings evidence; particularly and this is true no allegation when there is violation of the particular Code Kirkland, Brown v. as ...” negligence per section se 108 Ga. App. (1) (134 472). Juhan v. W. accord, 651 In C. Matthews SE2d Co., 623). Contracting 114 608 Ga. SE2d Plaintiff passenger sustaining enumerates as error the court’s objections to questions asked cross examination of defendant daughter. Two of these questions concerned two other occasions where a third party one instance and defendant driver another had used the car permission. with defendant car owner’s court objections sustained holding that other instances were not relevant to the issue of proving the existence of the " family car doctrine. right 'The of a party thorough sifting cross as to examination witnesses called him is not infringed by such confining examination to matters that are relevant the case.’ Robinson v. issues Murray, 690, The judge may inquire as to the relevancy questions propounded upon cross examination and may restrict the cross examination to relevant matters.” Bass Bass, question calling
Another upon defendant to answer whether defendant felt driver he could use the car during that week end party repetitious and properly excluded on that ground. It is discretionary with the court to restrict cross prevent examination so as to repetition needless questions to matter which has already been fully developed on cross Hart, Western & Atlantic R. v. examination.
SE2d 785). McCartney McCartney, "The trial court has a discretion to control of cross
examination within reasonable grounds, and the exercise of this Powell, discretion will not be controlled unless abused.” Gordy (3) 95 Ga. App. These enumerations *9 error are without merit. 9) (Nos. 8 by plaintiff of error and
11. Two enumerations objections sustained having of the court complain concerning other occasions on police of the officer questions making prior and his with defendant driver which he had dealt In accord: Flint ruling. in court’s find no error charges. We Edwards, Co. v. Explosive (1) Norris, 888); Hollomon v.
Cox v. 762, 765 and citations therein. Hopson, 48223; in No. cases judgments reversed in case Judgment affirmed Bell, J., J., Eberhardt, Hall P. and 48226. C. Nos. JJ., Pannell, J., J., Deen, Stolz, in Quillian and concur. concurs P. Evans, J., dissents. only. the judgment May Argued 29, 1973 Decided October Rehearing 27, 1973 denied November Lake, L. Newberry, Haas & Robert for Durrett. Dunaway, Shelfer, Parker, R. William for Farrar. W.Killorin, Killorin, Forbes,
Gambrell, Russell, Edward Wade & Stumm, L. Richard for Fuller. in D. C. dissenting part concurring part. in and Judge,
Evans, daughter, to his Volkswagen Durrett furnished automobile Durrett, There was purpose under doctrine. family Debra that had allowed others to drive the evidence which showed she and to which he made no knowledge, car with her father’s also which showed that Debra objection. There was and Dangler go get loaned to Bruce and Charles Farrar the car them; and and that hamburgers some and coffee for her while mission, it driving the car on this was wrecked Dangler Bruce was killed. The mother of Charles Dangler and both and Farrar were homicide brought wrongful against Farrar an action for her son’s estate, D. Bruce Debra Durrett C. Dangler’s Durrett, following the trial of the case the results as defendants. On were reached: in
1. The returned a verdict favor administrator jury court motion for new Dangler; plaintiffs Bruce the trial denied trial, in this court affirms. majority opinion and on appeal, verdict, denied,
2. for directed which was Debra Durrett moved in this court affirms. appeal; majority opinion her cross Durrett; 3. in favor of Debra The returned verdict trial; and on her granted plaintiffs trial court motion for new in this court reverses. appeal majority opinion cross Durrett, of D. 4. The trial court directed verdict in favor C. opinion court affirms. appeal, majority and on holdings opinion is to majority The effect these allow it is Debra recovery plaintiff, agreed no albeit Durrett verdict; to a verdict in jury’s not entitled directed her favor instance, I dissent from the each upheld. majority opinion Debra not to a except agreeing Durrett was entitled directed verdict. trial court have granted plaintiffs should motion for new Dangler;
trial of Bruce administrator this court do so. judgment failing should reverse its The trial court erroneously charged could not recover gross unless proven, place and did not at that a negligence could proof be had recovery simple ordinary negligence. *10 If had that nothing the evidence shown Charles Farrar was more than a in the the guest passenger Volkswagen, rule of gross negligence would have v. Ga. applied. 69 Holtsinger Scarbrough, (1) (24 App. 117 SE2d The rule plainly stated the above automobile, 'guest’ follows: "a in an the authority, within of the that the contemplation law towards him host owes the care, exercising of duty slight is one who takes a in the ride merely pleasure automobile his own or his own and on business for making any without return or conferring any host upon the benefit other than the pleasure ’’(Emphasis his company. supplied.) Also of Glover, (123 see v. App. 903), Fowler 105 Ga. holding 218 SE2d Also, Reed, as above and exactly in the identical language. Nash v. 2) (59 App. (1, 81 Ga. 473 SE2d
But in this case joint undertaking there was a for the mutual benefit both of driver and John passenger. Officer Everett testified (Tr. 116) that Debra told him Volkswagen Durrett she loaned the Farrar) (Charles Dangler Bruce and other boy get to go and some coffee and hamburgers. both; The car was loaned to and both go were hamburgers the and coffee. This was a joint undertaking for the mutual benefit Dangler of Farrar Durrett. Debra Williamson,
In v. 96 910), McBee Ga. App. 859 SE2d automobile, upon is held: "An invitee in an or to whom the owner operator thereof duty exercising owes the ordinary care for his is one safety, presence whose in or the automobile is of the operator invitation owner or purpose the of conferring host, is, some substantial upon his that more something benefit than merely host affording the the the pleasure guest’s company. (59 (2) Reed, . . . Atlantic v. Co. SE2d Nash App. 81 Ga. 910).” Taylor, v. (Emphasis supplied.) SE2d App. slight, in order to may very require benefit to the driver Varga passenger. care for the In ordinary safety exercise of Williamson, 518), v. 110 Ga. the was App. passenger Barry, Youmans App. the In buy driver a beer. 158), wedding. was to attend the driver’s passenger Scarbrough, Holtsinger supra, passenger In depress of the car to it while its bumper stood the rear Lail, Wright In disengaged following from a car. 487), passenger helped attempted to listen and Tidwell,
to locate a rattle in the car. In Fountain v. 486), at 204 was to share expense In trip. all of these cases was held the driver owed exercising ordinary care toward the duty passenger. course, Of Debra Durrett contradicted Officer Everett’s But it was for the to decide as to whether testimony. jury witness, officer, police disinterested testified truthfully, Durrett, whether Debra an party litigation, interested testified Under no view of the matter did the trial truthfully. Debra, Everett, have to believe to disbelieve Officer could not recover unless gross negligence proven against Volkswagen. the driver of the This error demands the of a new trial as to the administrator Dangler, Bruce defendant.
It quite significant recognized trial court this error Durrett, in plaintiff’s motion for new trial as to Debra the motion for new trial because he admits he erroneously charged plaintiff could not proving gross negligence. recover without If this *11 Durrett, was error as to pray why Debra tell was not error as to Dangler, Bruce the driver? "What’s sauce for goose is sauce gander!” for the
2. We will not discuss the denial of Debra Durrett’s motion for affirms, directed majority opinion verdict. The and I fully concur. 3. granted The trial court properly plaintiffs motion for new trial as to Debra Durrett. He first same on the general grounds; but rescinded his then granted grounds order and same on 6, trial, 7 and 8 of the motion for which grounds complain new because of the that plaintiff required prove gross was to negligence in order to recover of Debra Durrett. For all of the correct, reasons in judgment we have discussed Division correct, and not but was demanded. The only evidence of Officer Volkswagen to both that Debra Durrett loaned Everett shows her, wit, of them and to and Farrar for the mutual benefit Dangler her to by coffee. This was a bailment go hamburgers Reed, (3), The trial court them. See Nash v. App. supra. 81 Ga. upon was entitled to recover charged should have believed proof ordinary simple negligence, provided they or held in Brown v. course, And, testimony. Officer Everett’s 13): Matthews, ". . . It is not necessary 79 Ga. It if light. enough it with a clear is
evidence should shine dim, Truth is often of it be afforded the evidence. glimpses amongst proved truth the facts best is Frequently nevertheless. has mentioned in his such fact testimony, one which no witness being an inference from other facts.”
And, defendant, having granted once a new trial as to the Debra a new trial as to all Durrett, required grant the trial court was whom a joint joint judgment defendants, Nelson, taken. See 332), Smith grant where was held: "The of a new trial to one who is a party joint judgment setting works the a new trial or the aside of the all other judgment parties.” as to To same effect Barnett, see Smith v. 435); Rann, 813, 817 Southeastern Truck Lines v. Bracewell,
Couey v. 4. The D. directing trial court erred a verdict favor of C. Durrett, defendant. (a)
Two very important factual issues this case are: Whether Debra’s father imposed conditions which others were not to be (The allowed to drive the car. burden was Debra her father (b) conditions, prove existed); such if they Whether the car was homicide, loaned to Bruce Dangler just Debra before the Dangler whether Bruce took the and the car keys without her knowledge or consent. opinion holds that majority simply because Debra
testified car, that she was not to let others allowed use the and that Dangler took keys knowledge and the car without her — — consent, the trial without the aid of the had the right to determine that Debra testified and thus truthfully remove issue on these two important questions, properly and that he directed a verdict her favor.
It vague true that Debra did in a testify, very fashion, she was not unsatisfactory supposed allow others (Tr. 48), to use the it car and she could use at certain times *12 to what "times and explain as She did not elucidate places. and car; and she also testified that to drive she was allowed places” course, being knowledge. her father’s Of driven it with others had action, vague ambiguous, where and testimony, her in this party R. Co. v. Southern her. strongly against most be construed must (1) (49 Hobbs, always And evidence must be SE & motion for party opposing towards the favorably construed most verdict, arising inferences therefrom when including all directed (1) Gose, light. Miraglia in any viewed (1) (123 Athens, &c. Mayor Jones v. 906); Durrett, in the father, sitting by D. was her side Debra’s C. 47) (Tr. take the witness stand to swear and never did courtroom not to let others drive the car. The that he had instructed Debra they his failure to testify could draw such inference from jury proper. Code 38-119. thought § could not taken as stronger
But a reason this evidence why impeach evidence to true was that offered by judge particular; in a material and then testimony very Debra’s jury determine her became whether function of should have been disbelieved and discredited its testimony (Code 38-1803, 38-1805), or part credited entirety §§ in part. discredited Debra She testified impeached?
In what material matter was to, Volkswagen or loan the positively give keys that she did not (Tr. to, Dangler directly automobile Bruce Officer John Everett her that when he flatly testimony, testifying contradicted investigation of the homicide: "She during talked with Debra Dangler it to Bruce and this other boy said loaned [Debra] [she] (Tr. with ... Did go get hamburgers Q. some coffee and Dangler she at time tell that Bruce stole her car? A. No you (Tr. 117) This, then, impeachment sir.” was of Debra’s testimony of her previous contradictory part statement as to a material jury, right thereafter had the testimony; jury, and the same, decide much if testimony any, to evaluate her and to how (not credible; judge) and the had the to disbelieve jury (Code 38-1803, 38-1805), it in it in entirety part its believe §§ it in part. and disbelieve impeach
The
that when there is an effort to
quite plain
law
witness,
step
cannot
in thereafter
and direct a verdict.
judge
attempt
a decision on whether
credibility,
including
jury
successful,
jury
be made
impeach
must
alone. For the
in such
province
to invade
are
following
error. The
authorities
instance
is reversible
Gale,
R.
to wit: Southern
Co. v.
matter,
on this
conclusive
Inc.,
&c.,
Auto
Raven v. Dodd’s
Sales
87, 91
*13
McCurry Bailey,
v.
633);
224
416,
421
SE2d
App.
at
Miller,
Travelers Ins. Co.
Ga.
320
SE2d
Cash,
Cash v.
(2),
In
There is still very powerful another reason the trial court why erred for directing opinion verdict Durrett. The majority proceeds upon the if theory the minor to whom the family purpose car was present entrusted was not in the car at actually another, the time it was driven no liability against can arise Williams, Pritchett owner. (153 They support cite 639), have they overlooked the very meaningful language near page bottom of as follows: "In in Georgia no case has it been held that parent liable when the son or family member was not in or when use, the automobile and directing its ” it was not being used a family purpose. (Emphasis supplied.) If the car was being used for a family purpose at the time of the collision, the owner is liable irrespective of the absence of his daughter from the car. This car was entrusted the father to the for her pleasure, convenience. If officer John comfort (Tr. Everett is to be believed Debra loaned the car to Bruce Dangler and Charles to provide Farrar all of them with coffee and hamburgers. That is a reasonable construction of testimony. his Nor does the law require that the father shall expressly consent the use of the car by daughter; others than the may such consent arise by implication. Bishop, Carter
784). And repeat we that all favorable inferences arising from the must testimony be construed the party who moves Athens, directed verdict. Jones v. &c. Mayor (1), supra. For this additional reason the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant Durrett.
I therefore respectfully dissent from all of the majority opinion, except as to its affirmance of the trial court refusing Debra Durrett’s motion for directed verdict.
48384. HARRISON v. LAWHORNE. Judge. appeal This from the denial of a motion for new trial Clark, by a defendant motorist against whom a verdict was obtained by guest is limited to special grounds contained in the amendment to the new trial motion. These *14 allege errors in overruling objections defendant’s to evidence and to the As jury. originally filed the usual general grounds were included but not contained in the enumerations of error as appellant’s recognized counsel these were issues for determination by the jury.
l.The first enumeration of error attacks ruling court’s
admitting documents which purported to be time records kept by plaintiffs employer, Service, Internal Revenue as to her attendance and absences on her government job. This enumeration also attacked the ruling court’s permitted which one of her fellow employees to testify from these records. Two witnesses from the IRS testified concerning their direct knowledge as to the entries made on these records including their supervision of the accuracy calculation thereof. It was further shown that original writings were sent government’s data center in Detroit where the written reports are reduced to microfilm.
Whether regarded as primary evidence, evidence or secondary
evidence was properly admitted. If regarded as primary evidence it came in the of a category witness
having personal knowledge of the facts from which the records were made. As stated in headnote of Villa Rica Mfg. Co. v. Co., 49): General American Ins. Life general rule, "As a testimony one who has knowledge