Harris v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. Jones

87 S.E. 713, 17 Ga. App. 215, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 311

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 25, 1915

Docket5815

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 713 (Harris v. Jones) 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

Harris v. Jones, 87 S.E. 713, 17 Ga. App. 215, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. Under the decision of this court in Schumer v. Register, 12 Ga. App. 743, 746, 747 (78 S. E. 731), a parent is not responsible for the tort of a minor child, if the tort is committed when the child is engaged merely in pleasure and not in the business of the parent. The liability of a parent for the tort of a minor child, under the law of this State, is analogous to the liability of a master for the tort of a servant while employed in the master’s business and in the scope of his employment. Applying the rule of law applicable to the liability of a person for the acts of his servant to the allegations in the present case, and considering such allegations in the light of the holding in Schumer v. Register, supra, as well as of the decision of the Supreme Court in Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 (77 S. E. 618), the petition did not set forth a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., dissents.

The demurrer was on the grounds that the petition does not set forth a cause of action, and that it is not averred that the alleged tort was committed by the defendant’s command, or in the prosecution and within the scope of his business.

L. L. Brown, for plaintiff in error. Hatcher & Smith, contra.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Under the decision of this court in Schumer v. Register, 12 Ga. App. 743, 746, 747 (78 S. E. 731), a parent is not responsible for the tort of a minor child, if the tort is committed when the child is engaged merely in pleasure and not in the business of the parent. The liability of a parent for the tort of a minor child, under the law of this State, is analogous to the liability of a master for the tort of a servant while employed in the master’s business and in the scope of his employment. Applying the rule of law applicable to the liability of a person for the acts of his servant to the allegations in the present case, and considering such allegations in the light of the holding in Schumer v. Register, supra, as well as of the decision of the Supreme Court in Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 (77 S. E. 618), the petition did not set forth a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., dissents.

The demurrer was on the grounds that the petition does not set forth a cause of action, and that it is not averred that the alleged tort was committed by the defendant’s command, or in the prosecution and within the scope of his business.

L. L. Brown, for plaintiff in error. Hatcher & Smith, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 713, 17 Ga. App. 215, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-jones-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack