Appellee initiated this suit against appellant, a South Carolina resident, alleging that appellant was liable for property damage resulting from a collision involving appellant’s minor son. Appellant was served pursuant to the Nonresident Motorist Act. He filed a response and specifically denied that he was liable for the damage to appellee’s vehicle. Appellee subsequently filed a motion to add appellant’s son as a party. The trial court found that the son was an indispensable party and ordered that he be joined as a party defendant. 1 Thereafter an attempt was made to serve the son pursuant to the Nonresident Motorist Act.
The son never filed a response nor appeared at the trial of the case, nor was a guardian ad litem appointed by the trial court. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict in favor of appellee against both appellant and his son for $700.00 in property damages and $2,143.96 in attorney fees. Appellant appeals from the denial of his motions to set aside the verdict, for new trial, and for directed verdict.
1. Appellant contends that the judgment in the instant case is void on the ground that his son was never properly joined as a party defendant. He contends that the Civil Practice Act, specifically Code Ann. §§ 81A-104 (d) (3) and 81A-117 (c) and the Nonresident Motorist Act, specifically Code Ann. § 68-801, require that a
In the instant case, the son was served pursuant to Code Ann. § 68-802; appellant, however, was not served in his capacity as the natural guardian of his son. Appellant was served with appellee’s motion to add the son as a party defendant and with appellee’s affidavit of compliance with Code Ann. § 68-802 regarding service \ipon the son. Nevertheless, appellant contends that since he was not served in his official capacity as natural guardian pursuant to Code Ann. § 68-802 — even though his son was served — the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over his son, thus making the resulting judgment void.
The Nonresident Motorist Act authorizes substituted service upon a nonresident minor growing out of an accident or collision in which any “such nonresident minor may be involved by reason of the operation by him, for him, or under his control or direction, express or implied, of a motor vehicle anywhere within the territorial limits of the State of Georgia.” Code Ann. § 68-801. Thus, the Nonresident Motorist Act operates, to require a nonresident minor to answer for his conduct in this state as well as to provide a claimant a convenient method by which he may sue to enforce his rights.
In order for a court of this state to obtain jurisdiction over the person of a defendant in an action brought against a nonresident motorist so as to render valid a judgment in personam against such defendant, two things must be done: (1) service of process and copies of the petition, or other pleadings with process attached thereto, must be made upon the Secretary of State or his duly authorized agent; and (2) notice of such service and a copy of the petition and process must be sent by registered mail to the defendant. Code Ann. § 68-802. In addition to service upon the nonresident defendant, the Nonresident Motorist Act further requires that “if any person upon whom service of process is authorized by this Chapter shall die, be insane, or
shall not be sui juris,
service shall be made upon his administrator, executor, guardian, or personal representative, in the manner prescribed in this Chapter, if such administrator, executor, guardian, or personal representative shall not be a resident of this State.” Code Ann. § 68-810. A minor is not sui juris.
Ehrhart v. Brooks,
The Nonresident Motorist Act must be strictly construed and
2. We must now consider whether the single judgment rendered against both appellant and his minor son must be set aside as to appellant in light of our holding in Division 1 of this opinion. The theory of liability underlying the judgment was the family purpose doctrine. “Under this doctrine, the owner of an automobile who permits members of his household to drive it for their own pleasure or convenience is regarded as making such a family purpose his ‘business,’ so that the driver is treated as his servant.” Prosser, Law of Torts 496, § 72 (3rd Ed. 1964);
Cohen v. Whiteman,
“The same principles apply to a master and servant when sued jointly in an action based solely on the negligence of the servant.. .as would apply in cases of joint liability against joint tortfeasors [Cit.];... the verdict and judgment must be valid against both or it is valid against neither.”
Southeastern Truck Lines v. Rann,
Judgment reversed.
Notes
Under Georgia law where the head of the family is sought to be held liable for some wrong committed by a member of his family within the scope of the family purpose doctrine, that member of the family need not necessarily be joined as a party defendant.
Miller v. Strauss,