Hale v. Davies

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hale v. Davies

70 S.E.2d 926, 86 Ga. App. 130, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 895

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1952

Docket33938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 S.E.2d 926 (Hale v. Davies) 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

Hale v. Davies, 70 S.E.2d 926, 86 Ga. App. 130, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 895 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Stjtton, C.J.

This was an action brought by the father of James Thomas Hale against William H. Davies and the Monroe Athletic Association Inc., to recover for the loss of his son’s services and for medical expenses incurred by reason of the same injury complained of in the case of Hale v. Davies, ante; and, although it is contended that a cause of action is set out in this case on the theory of an employer’s liability for putting a minor employee hired to him by the father to a more dangerous employment without the father’s consent, the relationship of employer and employee was not shown to have *131 existed between the coach and the plaintiff’s son. But, even if that principle were applicable by analogy to the present case, as the plaintiff was not required to send his son to school (Code, Ann. Supp., § 32-2104; Ga. L. 1945, p. 343), and as it was alleged that the plaintiff sent his son to school to afford him an education, it appears that the plaintiff gave implied permission for his son to take part in the educational activities of the school, whether during school hours or after-wards, whether pertaining to mental or to physical education, and including practice of the high-school football team; and, as it was not alleged that the plaintiff informed the defendants or the school authorities of his objections to his son’s engaging in football practice, the father also is charged with consenting to the risks of injury to his son incidental to his participation in football practice. Compare Folds v. Penn, 51 Ga. App. 682 (181 S. E. 308); King v. Floding, 18 Ga. App. 280 (89 S. E. 451). The petition failed to set out a cause of action against either defendant, and the court properly sustained the demurrers and dismissed the action.

Decided May 9, 1952. J. C. Knox, Quillian, Quillian &, Thomas, for plaintiff. D. M. Pollock, A. M. Kelly, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton and Worrill, JJ., concur.

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

Stjtton, C.J.

This was an action brought by the father of James Thomas Hale against William H. Davies and the Monroe Athletic Association Inc., to recover for the loss of his son’s services and for medical expenses incurred by reason of the same injury complained of in the case of Hale v. Davies, ante; and, although it is contended that a cause of action is set out in this case on the theory of an employer’s liability for putting a minor employee hired to him by the father to a more dangerous employment without the father’s consent, the relationship of employer and employee was not shown to have *131 existed between the coach and the plaintiff’s son. But, even if that principle were applicable by analogy to the present case, as the plaintiff was not required to send his son to school (Code, Ann. Supp., § 32-2104; Ga. L. 1945, p. 343), and as it was alleged that the plaintiff sent his son to school to afford him an education, it appears that the plaintiff gave implied permission for his son to take part in the educational activities of the school, whether during school hours or after-wards, whether pertaining to mental or to physical education, and including practice of the high-school football team; and, as it was not alleged that the plaintiff informed the defendants or the school authorities of his objections to his son’s engaging in football practice, the father also is charged with consenting to the risks of injury to his son incidental to his participation in football practice. Compare Folds v. Penn, 51 Ga. App. 682 (181 S. E. 308); King v. Floding, 18 Ga. App. 280 (89 S. E. 451). The petition failed to set out a cause of action against either defendant, and the court properly sustained the demurrers and dismissed the action.

Decided May 9, 1952. J. C. Knox, Quillian, Quillian &, Thomas, for plaintiff. D. M. Pollock, A. M. Kelly, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton and Worrill, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E.2d 926, 86 Ga. App. 130, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-davies-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack