Court Opinion

ID: 9579007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:50:31.110845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:09.232467
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge, and Gardner, Presiding Judge,
dissenting. We concur in the judgment as to Thomas L. Griggs, but we dissent from the judgment of reversal as to James Dennard. Thomas was a special agent of James Dennard for one purpose, namely, to operate for Dennard a specified, identified, registered and marked taxicab. The actual authority of Thomas to do so is undisputed. As we see the case Thomas’ apparent authority went no further. Dennard put Thomas in possession of Den*643nard’s authorized and registered cab. Such possession was indicative of his authority to operate that particular cab for hire. There certainly was nothing in such action by Dennard to lead the public to believe that Thomas had authority to substitute his own unmarked and unregistered vehicle for the regular cab. The circumstances of this case may seem hard on an injured plaintiff, but we have to take and apply the law as it exists, to the best of our understanding. There are two sides to this case. Thomas was a special agent for one specific purpose. If he attempted to exceed that authority, the one dealing with him was required by law to examine his authority. Code § 4-301. If Thomas could, under the majority’s view, substitute his own vehicle, he could substitute any vehicle he could get his hands on, no matter how defective or dangerous. Dennard was as innocent in the transaction as was the plaintiff insofar as affirmative conduct is concerned and more nearly innocent insofar as being able to prevent the violation of the agent’s authority was concerned because Dennard had no notice of the agent’s intention to substitute a vehicle. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the law will presume that an agent will not violate his duties, and Dennard had a right to expect obedience to his contract with Thomas. There is nothing in this record that would have led the plaintiff to believe that Thomas was authorized to substitute an unmarked and unregistered vehicle. There is nothing to charge Dennard with knowledge that Thomas might substitute such a vehicle. The plaintiff did not rely on a previous substitution. Dennard did not by a course of conduct of permitting Thomas to so substitute vehicles give implied authority for such substituting. The mere giving of authority to Thomas to operate one particular cab certainly cannot be said to have induced the plaintiff to deal with Thomas as having authority to substitute unmarked and unregistered vehicles. We do not see the applicability of the majority’s citations on this question to the facts of this case. The rules which we think apply are stated in various cases too numerous to cite, but see 2 Ain. Jur. 82-84, Agency, §§ 101, 102, and Jewell v. Martin, 67 Ga. App. 295 (20 S. E. 2d 93). What is said above applies to whatever authority the telephone girl had to act for Dennard.