58 Ga. App. 199 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1938
1. On the trial of a suit in which the plaintiff sought to recover of the defendant damages to the plaintiff’s automobile resulting from a collision between the defendant’s automobile truck and the plaintiff’s automobile, and caused by alleged negligence of the defendant in the operation of the automobile truck by and through his authorized servant and agent operating it at the time, where the defendant denied that the truck which caused the damage belonged to him, and denied that the person operating the truck was his servant or agent, or was engaged in the prosecution of the defendant’s business when operating the truck, while there was evidence that the truck belonged to a person other than the defendant, and that this person gave directions to the driver of the truck, and that at the time of the collision the driver of the truck was this person’s agent or servant, and was engaged in the prosecution of this person’s business, and it was contended by the plaintiff that the person giving orders and directions to the driver of the truck was, irrespective of the ownership of the truck, the agent or servant of the defendant engaged in the prosecution of the defendant’s business, which was that of cutting timber and operating a sawmill, it did not appear conclusively from the uncontradicted evidence that at the time of the collision the truck (although it may have been operated under the direction of an agent of the defendant, and the operator may have been the defendant’s agent) was being operated in the prosecution of the defendant’s
Judgment reversed.
