*1 350
209) per- (1992). clearly search of her did not consent to the Bowen probable property, for her detention. and was cause there sonal to that the search did not exceed The the is on the State establish burden scope given. 459, State, 460 Amato v. Ga. consent 193 Springsteen State, v. Ga. See also SE2d 832) (discussion consent). (424 (1992) scope The State purse proving within the its that Bowen’s was did not meet scope burden a search her car. of Ellis’ consent to ruling to on a motion This is bound to review a trial court’s court uphold findings suppress favorably and will not disturb its to its most Morgan findings clearly State, v. unless erroneous. 639) (394 (1990); Combs, State v. 691) (1989). Boney Sergeant admitted In this because proba- purse consent, was without without that search Bowen’s legal arrest, the motion incident to a renewed ble and not granted. suppress been to should have 2. In decision in Division we need not address view our remaining Bowen’s enumeration of error. Blackburn, J., concur. reversed. Groover, Groover, Jr., Childs, Duke R.
Groover & Denmark Attorney, Sparks III, Pamela Y. White-Col- B. District Willis Attorneys, appellee. bert, Matthews, District Thomas J. Assistant et al. A93A1308.GAFFORD DUNCAN by Pipe- as a mechanic Rockdale Robert principal president owner, line, Duncan, al- Inc. Paul Rockdale’s solely pur- truck lowed Gafford to use a poses. night work, truck to commit the Gafford used the One after against aggravated wife, assault offense began high-speed chase, re- with Gafford Gafford. incident a peatedly ramming his wife. Eventu- car driven the truck into the flipped ally over, where it into a ditch Gafford forced his wife’s car landing top injuring Gafford was convicted her. Robert on its prison. time in serve assault and sentenced to alleging, among against Rockdale, Duncan and Gafford filed a lawsuit other things, negligently entrusted that granted to Duncan and to The trial court Gafford.
351' appeals, contending only all She Rockdale on claims. that court summary judgment erred to Duncan and on the Rockdale negligent entrustment claim. predi- entrustment,
“Under the respondeat superior not on the doctrine of cated act on but a the owner in drive, automobile another to *2 knowledge incompetent habitually actual that the driver is or reck- negligence part proximate less, concur, and this must as a the of (negligence) incompe- cause, with the of the driver on of account tency (Emphasis supplied; punctua- and recklessness.” citations and omitted.) (1) (390 Johnson, tion Barnes v. 194 Ga. 921) (1990); Young Wooldridge, 187 Ga. 663-664 100) (1988). purposes appeal, For of this even if we deciding, negli- assume, without that Duncan and Rockdale acted gently allowing vehicle, Robert Gafford to drive the Billie Faye negligent Gafford’s of claim entrustment must fail because their negligence proximate injuries. was not the cause of her “Generally, independent, intervening an act criminal of a third party, injury occurred, without which the would not have will be superseding any proximate injury treated as the of the and thus negligence intervening defendant; of the if the criminal is act a rea- sonably consequence negligent conduct, foreseeable of the defendant’s legal, injury the causal connection between that conduct and is not ordinarily charged duty However, broken. one is not with the antic- (Citations ipating per omitted.) punctuation acts mala se.” Her- 865) (1983). cules, Lewis, Inc. v. argues appellees that the should have foreseen the intervening they criminal of her acts husband because knew that he previously physi- driven under the influence alcohol and had cally- unpersuasive. argument abused her. We find this if Even alleged by Faye Gafford, Duncan and Rockdale knew the facts only expected might again could be to foresee that Gafford drive knowledge, under the influence of alcohol or abuse his wife. Such impose upon appellees duty anticipating however, does not the the working that Gafford would use the vehicle after hours for a high-speed aggravated assault; chase and to commit an such criminal simply reasonably use of the was not a foreseeable con- sequence giving exclusively Gafford access to the truck purposes. prox- Robert Gafford’s unforeseeable criminal acts were the injuries supersede negli- imate cause of Billie Gafford’s gence of Duncan and Rockdale. The trial court err in did not summary judgment negli- to Duncan and Rockdale the claim gent entrustment. Blackburn, J., concurs. affirmed. specially.
concurs concurring specially. Judge,
Blackburn, opinion’s majority trial court’s affirmance of the with the I concur However, grant in this case. defendants for the majority’s application disapprove of interven- of the doctrine the I theory negligent party entrust- ing to the acts of a third criminal ment. intervening independent, acts of a third The doctrine of ap- injury superseding party plied before been has never cause of an as a negligent involving of motor vehicles entrustment to cases good Georgia, law this doctrine into the Infusion of with reason. duplicate unnecessary; best, negligent would at it is entrustment analysis presently cases, and entrustment proximate cause. worst, the determination could confuse at it majority, entrust- noted As predicated upon vehicle to an- ment, the owner incompetence knowledge or habitual of the latter’s other with actual subsequently negligent lending concur must recklessness, and that driving. incompetence Barnes v. or reckless the driver’s In the instant possibly the defend- known to risk associated with Gafford’s *3 act of influence. The defendants’ ants was that of providing way “concurred” car thus Gafford with a weapon deadly commit of the vehicle as a his intentional use properly reason, the trial court For that assault. an granted the defendants. for Strauss, Walker, T. & John
Strauss Weinberg, Ansley Long, Gunn, Wheeler, John K. Earl W. & appellees. IV, Train v. REESE. MURRAY
A93A1360. (436 SE2d appointed his sis- the estate of executor of C. Reese was Hertize parcels following land in 1983. Two her death ter, were the veyed Irvin Isabelle parcel, Reese, was con- left to estate. One assets of the son, Wilton in other, the decedent’s left to The out of the estate. unpaid taxes was sold for until it Irvin, in the estate remained February expired right two months to redeem 1988. Murray, conveyed property a Connecticut res- to Estella later the redemption filed in the land records The notice of bar ident.