*1 B. error. plaintiff Venable, James Jr., Henry M. contra. Hatcher, 21664. FERGUSON GURLEY.
Argued July September 6, 1962 9, 1962 Decided Rehearing 1, 1962. denied October Ingram, Wm. A. plaintiff error. Parker, I.
James contra. Justice. Whether the defendant’s Grice, guilty negligence proximately causing plaintiff’s injuries so, and, if whether the defendant is liable under the family purpose doc- trine for those injuries, are the two issues here. involved
Those issues arose in a suit by against R. Kenneth J. Gurley in the Ferguson, City injuries Court of Polk sus- County, for tained Ferguson’s while in an automobile driven wife. They grant are before of application us for certiorari Appeals. Court of general
The defendant special filed demurrers petition, Upon all of which evi- were overruled. trial, dence the plaintiff, with others, rode back forth Ferguson with Mrs. employment from Rockmart their privilege. $5.00 each day, paying Marietta week They were returning home from when collision in plaintiff injured testimony, According occurred. Mrs. hour and Ferguson about 45 or 50 an miles auto- 250 feet behind following approximately 200 to appeared ahead, coming around mobile an when Ferguson’s road, lane wrong side of the in Mrs. curve on the side- speed. rate That traffic, excessive an *2 collided Ferguson then the vehicle and swiped the ahead of one evidence the The plaintiff. Ferguson injuring one, with the away when some feet the vehicle was oncoming that that automobile, Ferguson occupants first observed off get have to Ferguson she occupants Mrs. those warned steering not turn that either did she hit, be road or all, get off road did minute or last wheel until took the collision where highway that the shoulder of and level. was broad Fergu- contradictory
The as to ownership evidence was belonged his son The defendant that it automobile. testified defendant, that title was in wife, but evidence showed registration owner, that recited him that certificate for obligation, evidenced life insured financing his charged to obligation, repairs payment of put explanation the above facts was that “I him. simply His for name convenience.” my the purpose As car, of the defendant stated this that he in his owned a truck which used business and principally that “I it to wife, gave use, gift to, to do whatever she wanted a I did wife, it,” him the usually occasion drive also a recent when he used He told of occasions automobile. statement was that “I no in the had trip vehicle. His wages money or salary in her or any any interest of kind Lockheed connection with this paid trip hauling these forth.” people back and jury plaintiff,
The returned a for the defend- verdict judgment for notwithstanding ant’s the verdict motions Ferguson new of Appeals denied. Court affirmed. trial were 218). Certiorari Gurley, App. 105 Ga. SE2d rulings applied granted primarily which to review likely reoccur. situation a negligence we first the feature Considering that, conclude under the evidence, was fact ordinary whether the jury defendant’s failed exercise care to avoid of the approaching driver proximate failure was cause and whether such injuries. the plaintiff’s Williams, See Anderson 579).
“A motorist right insist entitled to full to a half the highway when an approaching vehicle over the to; center line. He under duty exercise care to ordinary avoid turning right a collision extent of . The right required may turn be depend will upon the position of vehicle and other circumstances.” Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, 2, Yol. 898, pp. 63. Whether to make turn, when §§ far, questions jury. how in the here were case occupants Ferguson guests, car were passengers, private Therefore, duty vehicle. owed them was one *3 (5) (88 Fountain ordinary Tidwell, care. v. 92 Ga. 199 486); and Cyclopedia of Automobile Blashfield, Law Practice, 4, part p. Vol. 1, 2271, 296. § family purpose
We feature. turn now to purpose doctrine, one family Under who auto- furnishes an mobile for the and convenience of makes family his use such vehicle for purpose such his affair or business, liable and of a member of driv- the vehicle ing purpose express for such consent, with his implied.
In dealing with this feature of must we consider in Georgia been has established and determine if policy. instant scope facts are within its and The landmark point case on this v. 144 Russell, Griffin Ga. SE 275, 277, 10, LRA 1916F 216, AC 1917D 994). There, a mother owned an automobile her and allowed operate minor son it. While he was driving with several buggy. he occupant friends collided with a that vehicle After sued mother. reviewing a holdings number jurisdictions (one from other this court concurring Justice absent) specially adopt chose to then doctrine, allegation “Defendant stage. held It that in formative its pleasure of her the comfort kept automobile for said driving said . He . was including son]. [the of, complained herein time of friends, himself and wlm the same for comfort of car, the owner of said the consent of him, by and with with that demurrer, pointing out subject to defendant,” com- be used kept the automobile to- “If [the mother] minor her son family, including her fort .” affair. business thereof, member her quoted approval its at that this court decision, In arrival Abercrombie, P LRA Birch Wash. 486 (NS) 59): independent “The fact agency induced [is] daughter was that that [parent child], relationship father very purpose the machine for for which using It should be used. kept and intended that owned it, it, ownership, purpose being very used in furtherance of persons whom intended one of just sense in every It was in out. should be carried either agent. distinction, no possible There by his business legal law, between morals, her sound or sound reason, sound him employed by chauffeur parent relation to agency fact purpose. The for the same service, no service remunerative has agency, business nor the liability.” bearing bar, the defendant contends the case at since In him or for the acting as such, fact wife was business, family purpose individual agree. We no cannot application. has Russell, laid supra, decision Griffin *4 doctrine Georgia, subsequent for the broad foundation and Appeals the Court of have reaffirmed of this court decisions jurisdictions among give those an Georgia it. which Today doctrine, applying it to which uses application extensive family purely personal have no accommodation but which are to family purpose jurisdictions “In which apply user. impose extent, to liability its fullest it is held doctrine to supplied of who has the father head vehicle, 280
notwithstanding being it at time injury used member the family exclusively individual use pleasure Ga. [citing, among others, Harpe, Hubert 181 (184 (182 167) Burgess, App. 168 SE and Hexter v. Ga. 819 769) (Em . SE .” 60 1073, Vehicles, Motor 433. CJS ] § phasis ours.) High See also Am. Automobiles 5A Jur. way Traffic, 604; and Blashfield, Cyclopedia Automobile § Law, 5A, 3116, p. Vol. 56. §
The evidence defendant here finding authorized supplied owned automobile wife was he driving, maintained it for the convenience of his that, being the time it used for injury, purpose. receipt passengers $5.00
The wife’s week each of the rode pursuant who share- obviously with her the-expense arrangement, family purpose not make the and does doctrine inapplicable. We do have a situation where one automobile itself used being cany business, trans- where the automobile convenient means of was used as a portation of the wife. employment
Also, the
any
absence of
interest of
the husband
the revenue
from the trips or his
work does
make
wife’s
inapplicable. The
provided
test
automobile
whether
comfort
pleasure,
convenience of
family or
member
and whether
at the time
of the
purpose.
Caldwell,
within that
Evans v.
SE
Here, be unreasonable say that the jury could purposes find one of the for which this supplied was for the wife’s comfort and convenience in trans- *5 Application from her work. portation to and occurred, open not even be to had the hair- her home from her way for example, while she was friends. dresser’s, bridge a game, ride ^ traveling to her convenience Should comfort and from her husband’s equally she works be another town where an automobile by providing it so business if chooses make to the, her to trip? make rulings controlling assign The above are as to all defendant’s overruling ments of error. Therefore, notwith judgment demurrers and denial motions trial standing proper. verdict new and for Judgment All the except concur, Duckworth, Justices affirmed. C. J., and Candler, J., who dissent. Justice, dissenting.
Candler, car as established applies courts State this husband or to a father only when using some immediate member of an automobile kept owned and him for con- venience of applicable is not as when his wife, case, using this her prosecution husband’s car and in the private of her own business. evidence in I this finding view demanded it, injured collision which the plaintiff neither resulted from an act of committed part the defendant’s nor failure to use from on her ordinary care diligence avoid the collision. It shows that she driving place her her husband’s she employment; that wholly high- within her lane way, traveling 50 miles hour; person, while driving his automobile at an excessive rate of speed long around wrong highway, curve on side sideswiped an automobile feet in front about 250 of her then collided head-on with the automobile she was work and while she still proper wholly within lane; the plaintiff, with her on share- while the-expense injured consequence arrangement, justice right person properly collision. Common of a dis- highways require our court stamp this its am authorized approval case. I the verdict rendered this dissent. state Chief Justice concurs in this Duckworth