Calhoun v. Pair

Supreme Court of Georgia

Calhoun v. Pair

30 S.E.2d 180, 197 Ga. 703, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 307

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1944

Docket14840.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 30 S.E.2d 180 (Calhoun v. Pair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calhoun v. Pair, 30 S.E.2d 180, 197 Ga. 703, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 307 (Ga. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Tlie Court of Appeals (in ease No. 30334) certified to this-court the following questions: “1. Is a father, who furnishes to his minor son (fourteen years of age) a bicycle for the purpose of using the same to go to and from school, liable to another in damages for injuries received by the other when such injuries are occasioned by the-negligent and unlawful use of such bicycle by the minor son, and where such negligence is the proximate cause of the injury? 2. If the-answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is such liability based on what is generally termed 'the family purpose doctrine,’ or on some-other principle of law?” Answer; The Justices are in disagreement as to the processes of reasoning by which we reach the ultimate conclusion, but we are unanimous in the view that the answer to the first, question is “No,” and for this reason no answer to the second question is required. Question answered.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Tlie Court of Appeals (in ease No. 30334) certified to this-court the following questions: “1. Is a father, who furnishes to his minor son (fourteen years of age) a bicycle for the purpose of using the same to go to and from school, liable to another in damages for injuries received by the other when such injuries are occasioned by the-negligent and unlawful use of such bicycle by the minor son, and where such negligence is the proximate cause of the injury? 2. If the-answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is such liability based on what is generally termed 'the family purpose doctrine,’ or on some-other principle of law?” Answer; The Justices are in disagreement as to the processes of reasoning by which we reach the ultimate conclusion, but we are unanimous in the view that the answer to the first, question is “No,” and for this reason no answer to the second question is required. Question answered.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 S.E.2d 180, 197 Ga. 703, 1944 Ga. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calhoun-v-pair-ga-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack