Court Opinion

ID: 9581590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:16:31.474717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:06.624844
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part. D. C. Durrett furnished a Volkswagen automobile to his daughter, Debra Durrett, under the family purpose doctrine. There was evidence which showed that she had allowed others to drive the car with her father’s knowledge, and to which he made no objection. There was also evidence which showed that Debra loaned the car to Bruce Dangler and Charles Farrar to go and get some hamburgers and coffee for her and them; and that while Bruce Dangler was driving the car on this mission, it was wrecked and both Dangler and Farrar were killed. The mother of Charles Farrar brought an action for her son’s wrongful homicide against Bruce Dangler’s estate, and against Debra Durrett and D. C. Durrett, as defendants. On the trial of the case the following results were reached:
1. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the administrator of Bruce Dangler; the trial court denied plaintiffs motion for new trial, and on appeal, the majority opinion in this court affirms.
2. Debra Durrett moved for directed verdict, which was denied, and on her cross appeal; the majority opinion in this court affirms.
3. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Debra Durrett; the trial court granted plaintiffs motion for new trial; and on her cross appeal the majority opinion in this court reverses.
*3094. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of D. C. Durrett, and on appeal, the majority opinion in this court affirms.
The effect of these holdings by the majority opinion is to allow no recovery to plaintiff, albeit it is agreed that Debra Durrett was not entitled to a directed verdict; but the jury’s verdict in her favor is upheld. I dissent from the majority opinion in each instance, except in agreeing that Debra Durrett was not entitled to a directed verdict.
1. The trial court should have granted plaintiffs motion for new trial as to the administrator of Bruce Dangler; and this court should reverse its judgment in failing to do so. The trial court erroneously charged that plaintiff could not recover unless gross negligence was proven, and did not at any place charge that a recovery could be had upon proof of simple or ordinary negligence. If the evidence had shown that Charles Farrar was nothing more than a guest passenger in the Volkswagen, the rule of gross negligence would have applied. Holtsinger v. Scarbrough, 69 Ga. App. 117 (1) (24 SE2d 869). The rule is plainly stated in the above authority, as follows: "a 'guest’ in an automobile, within the contemplation of the law that towards him the host owes only the duty of exercising slight care, is one who takes a ride in the automobile merely for his own pleasure or on his own business and without making any return or conferring any benefit upon the host other than the pleasure of his company. ’’(Emphasis supplied.) Also see Fowler v. Glover, 105 Ga. App. 216, 218 (123 SE2d 903), holding exactly as above and in the identical language. Also, Nash v. Reed, 81 Ga. App. 473 (1, 2) (59 SE2d 259).
But in this case there was a joint undertaking for the mutual benefit of both driver and passenger. Officer John Everett testified (Tr. 116) that Debra Durrett told him she loaned the Volkswagen to Bruce Dangler and this other boy (Charles Farrar) to go and get some coffee and hamburgers. The car was loaned to both; and both were to go for the hamburgers and coffee. This was a joint undertaking for the mutual benefit of Dangler and Farrar and Debra Durrett.
In McBee v. Williamson, 96 Ga. App. 859 (1) (101 SE2d 910), it is held: "An invitee in or upon an automobile, to whom the owner or operator thereof owes the duty of exercising ordinary care for his safety, is one whose presence in or upon the automobile is by invitation of the owner or operator for the purpose of conferring some substantial benefit upon his host, that is, something more than merely affording the host the pleasure of the guest’s company. *310Nash v. Reed, 81 Ga. App. 473 (2) (59 SE2d 259) . . . Atlantic Co. v. Taylor, 80 Ga. App. 25 (54 SE2d 910).” (Emphasis supplied.) The benefit to the driver may be very slight, in order to require his exercise of ordinary care for the safety of the passenger. In Varga v. Williamson, 110 Ga. App. 684 (139 SE2d 518), the passenger was to buy the driver a beer. In Youmans v. Barry, 104 Ga. App. 762 (123 SE2d 158), the passenger was to attend the driver’s wedding. In Holtsinger v. Scarbrough, 69 Ga. App. 117, supra, the passenger stood on the rear of the car to depress it while its bumper was disengaged from a following car. In Wright v. Lail, 105 Ga. App. 261 (124 SE2d 487), the passenger helped to listen and attempted to locate a rattle in the car. In Fountain v. Tidwell, 92 Ga. App. 199, at 204 (88 SE2d 486), the passenger was to share the expense of the trip. In all of these cases it was held that the driver owed the duty of exercising ordinary care toward the passenger.
Of course, Debra Durrett contradicted Officer Everett’s testimony. But it was for the jury to decide as to whether the disinterested witness, a police officer, testified truthfully, or whether Debra Durrett, an interested party to the litigation, testified truthfully. Under no view of the matter did the trial judge have the right to believe Debra, to disbelieve Officer Everett, and to charge the jury that plaintiff could not recover unless gross negligence was proven against the driver of the Volkswagen. This error demands the grant of a new trial as to the administrator of Bruce Dangler, defendant.
It is quite significant that the trial court recognized this error in plaintiff’s motion for new trial as to Debra Durrett, and granted the motion for new trial because he admits he erroneously charged plaintiff could not recover without proving gross negligence. If this was error as to Debra Durrett, pray tell why it was not error as to Bruce Dangler, the driver? "What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!”
2. We will not discuss the denial of Debra Durrett’s motion for directed verdict. The majority opinion affirms, and I fully concur.
3. The trial court properly granted plaintiffs motion for new trial as to Debra Durrett. He first granted same on the general grounds; but rescinded his order and then granted same on grounds 6, 7 and 8 of the motion for new trial, which grounds complain because of the charge that plaintiff was required to prove gross negligence in order to recover of Debra Durrett. For all of the reasons we have discussed in Division 1, this judgment was correct, and not only correct, but was demanded. The evidence of Officer *311Everett shows that Debra Durrett loaned the Volkswagen to both Dangler and Farrar for the mutual benefit of them and her, to wit, to go for hamburgers and coffee. This was a bailment by her to them. See Nash v. Reed, 81 Ga. App. 473 (3), supra. The trial court should have charged that plaintiff was entitled to recover upon proof of ordinary or simple negligence, provided they believed Officer Everett’s testimony. And, of course, as held in Brown v. Matthews, 79 Ga. 1 (2) (4 SE 13): ". . . It is not necessary that the evidence should shine upon it with a clear light. It is enough if glimpses of it be afforded by the evidence. Truth is often dim, but is truth nevertheless. Frequently amongst the facts best proved is one which no witness has mentioned in his testimony, such fact being an inference from other facts.”
And, once having granted a new trial as to the defendant, Debra Durrett, the trial court was required to grant a new trial as to all of the joint defendants, and against whom a joint judgment was taken. See Smith v. Nelson, 123 Ga. App. 712, 713 (182 SE2d 332), where it was held: "The grant of a new trial to one who is a party to a joint judgment works the grant of a new trial or the setting aside of the judgment as to all other parties.” To the same effect see Smith v. Barnett, 109 Ga. App. 142, 143 (135 SE2d 435); Southeastern Truck Lines v. Rann, 214 Ga. 813, 817 (108 SE2d 561); Couey v. Bracewell, 111 Ga. App. 760 (143 SE2d 7).
4. The trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of D. C. Durrett, defendant.
Two very important factual issues in this case are: (a) Whether Debra’s father imposed conditions by which others were not to be allowed to drive the car. (The burden was on Debra or her father to prove such conditions, if they existed); (b) Whether the car was loaned by Debra to Bruce Dangler just before the homicide, or whether Bruce Dangler took the keys and the car without her knowledge or consent.
5. The majority opinion holds that simply because Debra testified that she was not allowed to let others use the car, and that Dangler took the keys and the car without her knowledge and consent, the trial judge — without the aid of the jury — had the right to determine that Debra testified truthfully and thus remove any issue on these two important questions, and that he properly directed a verdict in her favor.
It is true that Debra did testify, in a very vague and unsatisfactory fashion, that she was not supposed to allow others to use the car (Tr. 48), and she could use it only at certain times *312and places. She did not elucidate or explain as to what "times and places” she was allowed to drive the car; and she also testified that others had driven it with her father’s knowledge. Of course, being a party in this action, her testimony, where vague and ambiguous, must be construed most strongly against her. Southern R. Co. v. Hobbs, 121 Ga. 428 (1) (49 SE 294). And evidence must always be construed most favorably towards the party opposing & motion for directed verdict, including all inferences arising therefrom when viewed in any light. Miraglia v. Gose, 17 Ga. App. 639 (1) (87 SE 906); Jones v. Mayor &c. of Athens, 105 Ga. App. 86 (1) (123 SE2d 420). Debra’s father, D. C. Durrett, was sitting by her side in the courtroom (Tr. 47) and never did take the witness stand to swear that he had instructed Debra not to let others drive the car. The jury could draw such inference from his failure to testify as they thought proper. Code § 38-119.
But a stronger reason why this evidence could not be taken as true by the judge was that plaintiff offered evidence to impeach Debra’s testimony in a very material particular; and it then became the function of the jury to determine whether her testimony should have been disbelieved and discredited in its entirety (Code §§ 38-1803, 38-1805), or credited in part and discredited in part.
In what material matter was Debra impeached? She testified positively that she did not give the keys to, or loan the Volkswagen automobile to, Bruce Dangler (Tr. 68). Officer John Everett directly and flatly contradicted her testimony, testifying that when he talked with Debra during his investigation of the homicide: "She [Debra] said [she] loaned it to Bruce Dangler and this other boy to go to get some coffee and hamburgers with (Tr. 116) ... Q. Did she at any time tell you that Bruce Dangler stole her car? A. No sir.” (Tr. 117) This, then, was impeachment of Debra’s testimony by a previous contradictory statement as to a material part of her testimony; and the jury, and only the jury, thereafter had the right to evaluate her testimony and to decide how much of same, if any, was credible; and the jury (not the judge) had the right to disbelieve it in its entirety (Code §§ 38-1803, 38-1805), or to believe it in part and disbelieve it in part.
The law is quite plain that when there is an effort to impeach a witness, the judge cannot step in thereafter and direct a verdict. The credibility, including a decision on whether the attempt to impeach was successful, must be made by the jury and by the jury alone. For the judge to invade the province of the jury in such *313instance is reversible error. The following authorities are conclusive on this matter, to wit: Southern R. Co. v. Gale, 103 Ga. App. 87, 91 (2) (118 SE2d 742); Raven v. Dodd’s Auto Sales &c., Inc., 117 Ga. App. 416, at 421 (3) (160 SE2d 633); McCurry v. Bailey, 224 Ga. 318, 320 (162 SE2d 9); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Miller, 104 Ga. App. 554 (2), at 563 (122 SE2d 268). In Cash v. Cash, 212 Ga. 416 (93 SE2d 346), it is held: "Where a witness is sought to be impeached, the weight and credit to be given the testimony of such witness is a question exclusively for the jury. Code § 38-1805; Huff v. State, 104 Ga. 521, 523 (2) (30 SE 808).”
Did Debra testify truthfully as to not being allowed to let others use the car; and as to whether she gave the keys to and loaned it to Bruce Dangler, or whether he took it without her knowledge and consent? She may have testified truthfully, although a disinterested witness flatly contradicted her as to lending the car, which was quite material — but only a jury had the right to decide thereafter whether to believe or disbelieve her testimony in part or in its entirety. And most certainly the judge could not displace the jury and disbelieve the impeaching witness, believe Debra, and direct a verdict for her on the basis of his decision as to the weight and credibility of her testimony.
There is still another very powerful reason why the trial court erred in directing a verdict for Durrett. The majority opinion proceeds upon the theory that if the minor to whom the family purpose car was entrusted was not actually present in the car at the time it was driven by another, no liability can arise against the owner. They cite in support Pritchett v. Williams, 115 Ga. App. 8 (153 SE2d 639), but they have overlooked the very meaningful language near bottom of page 9, as follows: "In no case in Georgia has it been held that the parent is liable when the son or family member was not in the automobile and directing its use, or when it was not being used for a family purpose. ” (Emphasis supplied.)
If the car was being used for a family purpose at the time of the collision, the owner is liable irrespective of the absence of his daughter from the car. This car was entrusted by the father to the daughter for her pleasure, comfort and convenience. If officer John Everett is to be believed (Tr. 68) Debra loaned the car to Bruce Dangler and Charles Farrar to provide all of them with coffee and hamburgers. That is a reasonable construction of his testimony. Nor does the law require that the father shall expressly consent to the use of the car by others than the daughter; such consent may arise by implication. Carter v. Bishop, 209 Ga. 919, 928 (76 SE2d *314784). And we repeat that all favorable inferences arising from the testimony must be construed against the party who moves for directed verdict. Jones v. Mayor &c. of Athens, 105 Ga. App. 86 (1), supra.
For this additional reason the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant Durrett.
I therefore respectfully dissent from all of the majority opinion, except as to its affirmance of the trial court in refusing to grant Debra Durrett’s motion for directed verdict.