TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Scarborough v. Murray

SCARBOROUGH v. MURRAY (two cases)

Scarborough v. Murray, 183 S.E.2d 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 14, 1971
Docket
Nos. 46156, 46157
Judges
Deen
Citations
183 S.E.2d 216124 Ga. App. 301971 Ga. App. LEXIS 798

Opinion of the Court — Deen

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

Deen, Judge.

1. To change the status of a guest passenger in an automobile to that of an invitee there must be an express or implied invitation by the operator for the purpose of conferring some substantial benefit upon the host greater than merely affording him the pleasure of the guest’s company. Nash v. Reed, 81 Ga. App. 473 (2) ( 59 SE2d 259 ); McBee v. Williamson, 96 Ga. App. 859 ( 101 SE2d 910 ). Where the defendant driver made a social call on the plaintiff and they mutually decided to go for a ride on the beach in the defendant’s automobile, the plaintiff was a guest passenger to whom the defendant owed the duty of exercising slight care.

2. The defendant drove the automobile into a yard on a corner lot at a place where the occupants were unknown and the area unfamiliar; parked for a few minutes, and then attempted to drive slowly through the yard, not on the driveway, toward the street. The car struck an unseen obstacle and stopped, and immediately afterward caught on fire as the result of the ignition of gas escaping from a storage tank buried in the yard which had been damaged by contact with a wheel of the vehicle. The defendant’s contention that he was not guilty of gross *31 negligence because, although driving slowly with his lights on, it was impossible for him to see the tank may present a jury defense but it does not do so as a matter of law. It does not appear that the yard was intended for vehicular use, that the defendant had any right there, or that the tank was completely hidden. The trial court properly denied the motions for summary judgment urged by the defendant against the minor plaintiff and her father in their actions for damages.

Argued May 3, 1971 Decided June 14, 1971. Willis J. Richardson, Jr., Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James B. Hiers, Jr., for appellants. Anton F. Solms, Sr., for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1973: 11991: 119732026peak 1973 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wade v. Polytech Industries, Inc.413 S.E.2d 468 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. Matthew Eason -Cross v. George L. Weaver -Cross484 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1973)

Most recent

  1. Wade v. Polytech Industries, Inc.413 S.E.2d 468 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
  2. Matthew Eason -Cross v. George L. Weaver -Cross484 F.2d 459 (5th Cir. 1973)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Nash v. Reed, 59 S.E.2d 259 (Ga. Ct. App. 1950) 21
McBee v. Williamson, 101 S.E.2d 910 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list