Bell v. Washam., 82 Ga. App. 63, 60 S.E.2d 408 (1950)

Status: DECIDED

Docket Number: 32937

Parts: Damages; from Bulloch Superior Court-- Judge Re...

Linked as:

Text

A. S. Dodd Jr., contra.Deal & Bacon, for plaintiff in error.

1. While agency may be proved by the alleged agent's testimony, mere declarations of one outside of court can not in the first instance be received to establish agency, but after a prima facie case is otherwise made or ratification shown, such a declaration may be admitted in evidence in corroboration of other evidence tending to prove agency.

2. Upon application of the above stated principle of law, the court erred in admitting in evidence, over the objection that it was an attempt to prove agency, testimony of the plaintiff that the driver of a loaded truck, who caused another automobile to run into and damage her car, stated to a police officer investigating the collision that he was driving the truck for the defendant, there being no other evidence tending to show agency or ratification.

3. Whether or not the driver's statement that the defendant owned the truck was inadmissible it is unnecessary to decide, since ownership without proof of agency as here does not establish liability.

4. The failure of the defendant to make objection to certain questions in interrogatories to be executed before a commissioner did not bar him from objecting upon the trial to testimony upon substantial grounds relating to the incompetency of the testimony.

5. Testimony that the truck driver stated that he could not stop the truck because of its heavy load was not subject to the objection that it was an attempt to prove agency, the statement having no relevancy to such issue, and it was admissible as part of the res gestae on the question of negligence.

6. Stripped of the objectionable testimony referred to in headnote 2, the evidence failed to show that at the time of the collision the driver of the truck was the agent or servant of the defendant, and no liability existing on the part of the defendant, the court erred in overruling the amended motion for new trial.

Mrs. C. J. Washam brought an action in the Superior Court of Bulloch County against Alton Bell to recover for damages to her automobile. It was alleged and proved by her interrogatories that while driving along highway No. 80 and approaching a point approximately one mile south of Pooler, Georgia, and, after stopping because of another automobile in front of her stopping to permit another car to leave the highway on the left side, her car was run into from the rear and damaged by another car which had been struck by one which had just been struck by a loaded truck. It was alleged that this truck was driven by W. A. Parrish, an employee and agent of the defendant, in and about the business of the defendant and in the course of the employment of Parrish, and various acts of negligence against him were charged. The defendant denied all of the material allegations of the petition. The only evidence upon the trial consisted of the interrogatories of the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict in her favor. The defendant filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds, and by amendment added two special grounds. The court overruled the motion for new trial, and the exception here is to that judgment.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) Special ground 1 complains because of the admission in evidence of the following testimony of the plaintiff by interrogatories over the objection that it was an attempt to prove agency by the statement of the purported agent, the truck driver, to a third person and that it was hearsay: "I heard the driver of the truck tell the police officer who was investigating the accident that he was driving the truck for Alton Bell, who owned it." Apparently this testimony was for the purpose of establishing that the driver of the truck was the servant or agent of the defendant and that the defendant was the owner of the truck. While agency may be proved by the alleged agent's testimony, it is well established that mere declarations of one outside of court can not in the first instance be received to establish agency, but after a prima facie case is otherwise made or ratification shown such a declaration may be admitted in evidence in corroboration of other evidence tending to prove agency. In Heitmann v. Commercial Bank, 7 Ga. App. 740 (3-a) (68 S. E. 51), it was held: "While it is permissible to prove as a part of the res gestae of a transaction that one of the parties purported to act as the agent of a third person, yet his declaration to that effect is not of sufficient probative value to establish the agency, unless there be further proof, direct or circumstantial, to show that he was in fact an agent or that his acts as agent had been ratified by the alleged principal." See also White Sewing Machine Co. v. Horkan, 7 Ga. App. 283 (3) (66 S. E. 811); Lawhon v. Henshaw, 63 Ga. App. 683, 684 (11 S. E. 2d, 846), and cit. The fact that the declaration was made as part of the res gestae does not alter the rule. Swint v. Milner Backing Co., 30 Ga. App. 733 (3) (119 S. E. 336). See also Akridge v. Atlanta Journal Co., 56 Ga. App. 812, 815 (194 S. E. 590). The court erred in not disallowing the testimony that the driver stated that he was driving the truck for the defendant in so far as the testimony sought to prove agency. For reasons hereinafter stated it is unnecessary to decide whether or not the court erred in allowing in evidence the statement of the plaintiff that the driver said that the defendant owned the truck which he was driving.

Counsel for the defendant in error state in their brief that the question which elicited the statement as to agency was not designed "to prove agency but was a direct question to show ownership," and then proceeds to argue that under Fielder v. Pavison, 139 Ga. 509, 513 (77 S. E. 618), ownership being here shown liability was established against the defendant. In this contention counsel err. There it was said, by quoting from a Missouri case, and as quoted by counsel, that "Where a servant, who is employed for the special purpose of operating an automobile for the master, is found operating it in the usual manner such machines are operated, the presumption naturally arises that he is running the machine in the master's service. If he is not so running it, this fact is peculiarly within the knowledge of the master, and the burden is on him to overthrow this presumption by evidence which the law presumes he is in possession of." However, in that case it was not denied that the driver of the automobile was employed by the defendant as a chauffeur, the issue being merely as to whether or not at the time of the injury he was acting in the scope of his employment or using the automobile for his own pleasure and against the order of the master. Here, apart from the objectionable evidence there was no proof of agency or the relationship of master and servant, and without that essential element mere proof of ownership would not render the defendant liable.

E. 1065). Of course, on principle the same rule should more readily apply as to interrogatories, and we accordingly hold that the objections here, being substantial, did not come too late.

Special ground 2 complains because the court admitted in evidence, over the same objections as were urged to the testimony above dealt with, the following testimony: "The truck driver, W. A. Parrish, stated he just couldn't stop the truck because of the heavy load. he made this statement to the police officer who was investigating the accident." Counsel for the defendant in error assert in their brief that the defendant's counsel merely objected without stating any ground of objection and that such deficient objection can not be considered. We are bound, however, by the record, which shows in the motion for new trial, approved by the trial judge, that "Movant objected to the evidence as soon and at the same time it was offered, and then and there urged the same grounds of objection as urged in ground 1 above, that it was an attempt to prove agency by the statement of the purported agent and that it was hearsay." The fact that the driver could not stop the truck because of the heavy load had no relevancy to the question of agency and is not subject to the objection urged. What the driver said was hearsay, but was part of the res gestae and admissible for that reason on the question of negligence, though not showing agency. United Motor Freight Terminal Co. v. Hixon, 77 Ga. App. 506, 510 (48. S. E. 2d, 769).

The interrogatories of the plaintiff constituted the only evidence in the case, and there was nothing therein, other than the language complained of in special ground 1 of the motion for new trial, which tended in any wise to show that the driver of the truck was the agent or servant of the defendant. Stripped of the objectionable testimony, the evidence fails to show liability against the defendant, and the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.