Golden v. Medford

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Golden v. Medford

8 S.E.2d 531, 62 Ga. App. 229, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 629

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1940

Docket27650.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 S.E.2d 531 (Golden v. Medford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Golden v. Medford, 8 S.E.2d 531, 62 Ga. App. 229, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinions

Broyles, C. J.

This court in this case certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “Where a married woman owns as her separate property an automobile which she keeps for the comfort, pleasure, and convenience of the members of her family including her husband, and where, with her knowledge and consent, he is riding in and directing the operation of the car for his own pleasure; and where, without the knowledge or the express consent of the wife, she not being present, the husband procures an adult person, not a member of her family, to drive the ear under the *230 direction, control, and supervision of the husband, is the wife, under the ‘family-purpose doctrine’ of force in this State, liable in damages for personal injuries to a third person caused by the negligence of the driver in operating the car on the public highway ?” The Supreme Court returned the following answer: “ Construing this question to mean that the husband had general authority from the wife not only to ride in but to direct the operation of the car by others for his own pleasure, but that so far as this particular instance was concerned she had no actual knowledge, and had given no ‘express’ consent for her husband to ride in and direct the driving of the car by the individual, not a member of the family, who was operating it under the direction of the husband at the time the accident occurred, the question as propounded must be answered in the affirmative. Nothing is here decided as to what the law would be under a state of facts other than as here indicated. See Griffin v. Russell, 114 Ga. 275 (87 S. E. 10, L. R. A. 1916F, 216, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 994); Hubert v. Harpe, 181 Ga. 168 (182 S. E. 167); Evans v. Caldwell, 184 Ga. 203 (190 S. E. 582); Wells v. Smith, 54 Ga. 262; White v. Levi & Co., 137 Ga. 269 (2), 271 (73 S. E. 376).” Applying the foregoing ruling of the Supreme Court to the facts set forth in the instant petition, a cause of action was set forth therein against Mrs. Golden, the owner of the automobile in question; and her general demurrer to the petition was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This court in this case certified the following question to the Supreme Court: “Where a married woman owns as her separate property an automobile which she keeps for the comfort, pleasure, and convenience of the members of her family including her husband, and where, with her knowledge and consent, he is riding in and directing the operation of the car for his own pleasure; and where, without the knowledge or the express consent of the wife, she not being present, the husband procures an adult person, not a member of her family, to drive the ear under the *230 direction, control, and supervision of the husband, is the wife, under the ‘family-purpose doctrine’ of force in this State, liable in damages for personal injuries to a third person caused by the negligence of the driver in operating the car on the public highway ?” The Supreme Court returned the following answer: “ Construing this question to mean that the husband had general authority from the wife not only to ride in but to direct the operation of the car by others for his own pleasure, but that so far as this particular instance was concerned she had no actual knowledge, and had given no ‘express’ consent for her husband to ride in and direct the driving of the car by the individual, not a member of the family, who was operating it under the direction of the husband at the time the accident occurred, the question as propounded must be answered in the affirmative. Nothing is here decided as to what the law would be under a state of facts other than as here indicated. See Griffin v. Russell, 114 Ga. 275 (87 S. E. 10, L. R. A. 1916F, 216, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 994); Hubert v. Harpe, 181 Ga. 168 (182 S. E. 167); Evans v. Caldwell, 184 Ga. 203 (190 S. E. 582); Wells v. Smith, 54 Ga. 262; White v. Levi & Co., 137 Ga. 269 (2), 271 (73 S. E. 376).” Applying the foregoing ruling of the Supreme Court to the facts set forth in the instant petition, a cause of action was set forth therein against Mrs. Golden, the owner of the automobile in question; and her general demurrer to the petition was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 S.E.2d 531, 62 Ga. App. 229, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golden-v-medford-gactapp-1940.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack