Court Opinion

ID: 9587537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:23:22.518956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:27.740833
License: Public Domain

Quillian, J.,
concurring specially. I agree with the majority opinion that the instrument termed a release was a covenant not to sue.
The instrument was ambiguous as to whether Gainesville Speedway, Inc., was the promoter relieved of liability. The plaintiff’s own pleading and proof clearly and conclusively es*870tablished that the Speedway Corporation was the promoter intended by the parties to be protected under the terms of the contract.
The petition alleged: “At all times herein mentioned said corporate defendant Gainesville Speedway, Inc., was in the business of promoting races between stock and modified automobiles of individual owners, and maintained and operated a race tract off the Cleveland Highway, in Hall County, Georgia, and charged admission to spectators to see said races.”
The plaintiff testified: “I believe it is correct that the Gaines-ville Speedway leased the track out there and they handled the advertising for the race. The Southeastern Enterprises actually conducted the races and controlled them.”
The question as to the liability of C. V. Nalley, Inc., is a close one. In Dawson Motor Co. v. Petty, 53 Ga. App. 746, 749 (186 S. E. 877) it was held: “When the plaintiff showed by competent uncontradicted evidence that the defendant was the owner of the automobile that injured him and that the person operating it was, at the time of the injury, in the defendant’s employment, the presumption arose that the servant was engaged in the master’s business and within the scope of his employment; and the burden was then on the defendant to show that the person operating the machine was not his. servant, or was not at the time of the injury engaged in the business of the master.” There are many similar holdings.
In the instant case the evidence showed that Hunter was the employee of C. V. Nalley, Inc., operating and in charge of its wrecker, with the broad authority to do whatever was customary in rendering services for which the vehicle was designed. But I do not think that where a servant is in charge of a vehicle or other equipment of his employer which is adapted to a particular function, the presumption arises that he is the master’s agent authorized to render services of a nature entirely different from that in which such vehicle or equipment is commonly employed. The wrecker service was disassociated with the work of an electrician such as Hunter undertook to engage in on the occasion under investigation. By way of illustration,- if an employee drives his master’s milk or laundry truck to the race track it *871raises no presumption that he is authorized to drive the same in the races, or as for that matter, to transport passengers to and from the race track. If he drives his master’s automobile adapted to racing or transportation of passengers, the pronouncement of the Dawson Motor Co. case, supra, applies, and the presumption does arise that he is acting for his master and within the scope of his employment.
I have carefully considered the question as to whether Hunter’s conduct in driving the truck upon the race track to repair the electric wires necessary to the successful operation of the Speedway Corporation’s speaker constituted a mere deviation from the course of his employment, as was, in the case of Limerick v. Roberts, 32 Ga. App. 755 (124 S. E. 806) held not to constitute a departure from the course of his employment, or whether using the wrecker in the manner and for the purpose it was employed was an entire departure from and an act not within the scope of his employment. I am constrained to hold that the use of the truck in carrying on a business that the master was not engaged in, and for a purpose that the master could not have reasonably contemplated the vehicle would be put to, was not a mere deviation but an abandonment of Hunter’s employment. Hence, his employer was not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior for his negligent act.