Court Opinion

ID: 9856155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:39:19.502456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:10.735925
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
One of the defendants, Larry White, has filed a motion for rehearing in which he contends that the cases of Holland v. Boyett, 212 Ga. 458 (93 SE2d 662); Neve v. Graves, 26 Ga. App. 378 (106 SE 305); and Adamson v. McEwen, 12 Ga. App. 508 (77 SE 591), require a result different from the one reached by this court. Movant contends that a passenger in an automobile must have an equal right to direct and control the conduct of the driver before the negligence of the driver can be imputed to the passenger. However, such right may be shown by proof of an express agreement or by proof of facts from which such right may be implied. See Holland v. Boyett, 212 Ga. 458, supra. Even if such right of a passenger to direct and control the vehicle must be shown in order to hold him liable as a member of a joint enterprise, the pleadings and evidence, as to the defendant Larry White, meet this criterion. This defendant was a passenger in one of the leading vehicles involved in the race. Archie Grizzle, one of the drivers, testified: “Larry White gave the signal to start [the race] by holding his arm out the window and counted three and dropped his arm and we both started off.” We are of the opinion that from the evidence the jury would have been authorized to conclude that this defendant was an actual participant in the race.
However, there is an additional reason supporting the ruling *363of this court. An unlawful “joint enterprise” or unlawful “joint venture” was not involved in any of the cases relied upon by movant. Here, there was an agreement between this defendant and others to cany on an automobile race which, foreseeably, would involve violating the speed laws of this State, and the evidence conclusively shows that the speed laws were violated, and the jury would have been authorized to find that as a proximate result thereof the plaintiff's husband was killed.
“The general rule is that two> or more persons engaged in a common enterprise are jointly liable for wrongful acts done in connection with the enterprise, at least where the enterprise is an unlawful one, in which case all are answerable, for any injury done by any one of them, although the damage done was greater than was foreseen, or the particular act done was not contemplated or intended by them. In this respect, it has been held that where two persons are jointly engaged in an unlawful enterprise, and each performs a wrongful act in pursuit of such purpose, one of which acts causes an injury, the parties may be held jointly and severally liable, although it is not known which of the acts caused the injury. On the other hand, there is authority for the rule that where two or more are acting lawfully together in the furtherance of a common lawful purpose, one is not liable for the unlawful act of another, done in furtherance of the common purpose without his concurrence.” 52 Am. Jur. 454, Torts, § 116. See also 50 ALR 361; 5 ALR2d 98.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.