Limerick v. Roberts

Limerick v. Roberts, 124 S.E. 806 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided: October 7, 1924
Docket: No. 15407
Judges: Bloodworth
Citations: 124 S.E. 80632 Ga. App. 7551924 Ga. App. LEXIS 632

Opinion of the Court — Bloodworth

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bloodworth, J.

1. Under the particular facts of this ease, and in the light of the entire charge, the court did not' err, for any reason assigned, in instructing the jury as follows:

(а) “Now there is no question in this case as to any negligence on the part of Mr. Roberts [the plaintiff]. Nobody contends or can contend ■ under the evidence in this case that he was negligent.”

(б) “I charge you further that if a servant or employee, while engaged in the business of his master, makes a slight deviation for ends of his own, the master remains liable when the’ act was so closely connected with the master’s affairs that, though the servant may derive some " benefit from it, it may nevertheless fairly be regarded as within the course of his employment.” See Ryne v. Liebers Farm Equipment Co., 107 Neb. 454, 460 ( 186 N. W. 358 ), and citations; Dowdell v. Beasley, 205 Ala. 130 (3) ( 87 So. 18 ); Fisick v. Lorber, 159 N. Y. Supp. 722 (2) ( 19 Misc. 574 ); Gibson v. Dupree, 26 Col. App. 324 (2) ( 144 Pac. 1133 ); Devine v. Ward Baking Co., 188 Ill. App. 590 (2); Jessen v. Peterson, 18 Cal. App. 349 ( 123 Pac. 219 ); Brimberry v. Dudfield Lumber Co., 183 Cal. 454 (2) ( 191 Pac. 894 ).

2. There is evidence to support the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Seabroolc & Kennedy, K. A. McWhorter, for plaintiff in error,

*757 cited: 6 Ga. App. 470, 472 ; 3 Ga. App. 50 ; 139 Ga. 512 ; 19 Ga. App. 799 ; 20 Ga. App. 242 ; 59 N. E. 238 ; 50 N. E. 500 ; 144 Pac. 1123 ; 181 N. Y. Supp. 573 ; 157 N. W. 753 ; 210 S. W. 167 ; 159 N. W. 316 ; 71 Atl. 535 ; 183 Pac. 295 ; 9 Ga. App. 327 .

Gonnerat & Hunter, contra,

cited: 63 Conn. 155 ( 28 Atl. 29 , 27 L. R. A. 161); Berry on Automobiles (3d ed.), § 1088; 205 Ala. 130 ( 87 So. 18 ); 26 Colo. App. 324 ( 144 Pac. 1133 ); 159 N. Y. Supp. 722 ; 232 Mass. 576 ( 122 N. E. 743 ); 107 Neb. 454 ( 186 N. W. 358 ); 260 Pa. 466 ( 103 Atl. 882 ); 91 Wash. 637 ( 158 Pac. 529 ); 244 Pa. 172 ( 90 Atl. 528 ); 207 Mo. App. 137 ( 231 S. W. 277 ); Civil Code, § 4413, 6 Ga. App. 470 (distinguished).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts22

Relies on it most ⓘ

Dawson Chevrolet Co. v. Ford170 S.E. 306 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933)
Selman v. Wallace165 S.E. 851 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
Sanders v. Brown343 S.E.2d 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
Gomez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.172 S.E. 750 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
Jump v. Anderson197 S.E. 644 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
Andrews v. Norvell15 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)

Most recent

Coe v. Carroll & Carroll, Inc.709 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)
Sanders v. Brown343 S.E.2d 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
Davis Gas Co. v. Powell232 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Davis v. Childers215 S.E.2d 297 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
Harnage v. Hall169 S.E.2d 345 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)
Marketing Sales Industries of Georgia, Inc. v. Roberts165 S.E.2d 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 22

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Dowdell v. Beasley, 87 So. 18 (Ala. 1920)	37
	Ryne v. Liebers Farm Equip. Co., 186 N.W. 358 (Neb. 1922)	7
	Ritchie v. Waller, 28 A. 29 (Conn. 1893)	125
	Savannah Elec. Co. v. Hodges, 65 S.E. 322 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909)	51
	Maloy v. Rosenbaum Co., 103 A. 882 (Pa. 1918)	41
	Jessen v. Peterson, Nelson & Co., 123 P. 219 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912)	22
	Brimberry v. Dudfield Lumber Co., 191 P. 894 (Cal. 1920)	22
	George v. Carstens Packing Co., 158 P. 529 (Wash. 1916)	15
	Mathewson v. Edison Elec. Illuminating Co. of Boston, 122 N.E. 743 (Mass. 1919)	12
	Fisick v. Lorber, 95 Misc. 574 (1916)	8
	Fid. & Cas. Co. v. Kan. City Railways Co., 231 S.W. 277 (Mo. Ct. App. 1921)	7
	Witte v. Mitchell-Lewis Motor Co., 90 A. 528 (Pa. 1914)	3
	Higgins v. Western Union Tel. Co., 50 N.E. 500 (N.Y. 1898)	93
	Fielder v. Davison, 77 S.E. 618 (Ga. 1913)	93
	Lewis v. Amorous, 59 S.E. 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907)	68
	Danforth v. Fisher, 71 A. 535 (N.H. 1908)	55
	Brinkman v. Zuckerman, 159 N.W. 316 (Mich. 1916)	42
	Gousse v. Lowe, 183 P. 295 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)	38
	Derr v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 157 N.W. 753 (Wis. 1916)	19
	McIntire v. Hartfelder-Garbutt Co., 71 S.E. 492 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911)	15
	Riley v. Standard Oil Co., 191 A.D. 490 (1920)	3
	In re the Opening of Beck St., 19 Misc. 571 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1897)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list