32 Ga. App. 755 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1924
1. Under the particular facts of this ease, and in the light of the entire charge, the court did not' err, for any reason assigned, in instructing the jury as follows:
(а) “Now there is no question in this case as to any negligence on the part of Mr. Roberts [the plaintiff]. Nobody contends or can contend ■ under the evidence in this case that he was negligent.”
(б) “I charge you further that if a servant or employee, while engaged in the business of his master, makes a slight deviation for ends of his own, the master remains liable when the’ act was so closely connected with the master’s affairs that, though the servant may derive some " benefit from it, it may nevertheless fairly be regarded as within the course of his employment.” See Ryne v. Liebers Farm Equipment Co., 107 Neb. 454, 460 (186 N. W. 358), and citations; Dowdell v. Beasley, 205 Ala. 130 (3) (87 So. 18); Fisick v. Lorber, 159 N. Y. Supp. 722 (2) (19 Misc. 574); Gibson v. Dupree, 26 Col. App. 324 (2) (144 Pac. 1133); Devine v. Ward Baking Co., 188 Ill. App. 590 (2); Jessen v. Peterson, 18 Cal. App. 349 (123 Pac. 219); Brimberry v. Dudfield Lumber Co., 183 Cal. 454 (2) (191 Pac. 894).
2. There is evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
cited: 63 Conn. 155 (28 Atl. 29, 27 L. R. A. 161); Berry on Automobiles (3d ed.), § 1088; 205 Ala. 130 (87 So. 18); 26 Colo. App. 324 (144 Pac. 1133); 159 N. Y. Supp. 722; 232 Mass. 576 (122 N. E. 743); 107 Neb. 454 (186 N. W. 358); 260 Pa. 466 (103 Atl. 882); 91 Wash. 637 (158 Pac. 529); 244 Pa. 172 (90 Atl. 528); 207 Mo. App. 137 (231 S. W. 277); Civil Code, § 4413, 6 Ga. App. 470 (distinguished).
