Summary
In Clemons v. Busby, 144 Ga. App. 207, 240 S.E.2d 764 (1977), the Georgia court held the father was not liable under the family purpose doctrine where his son was emancipated, self-supporting, exercised exclusive control over the car, and did not reside in the family home.
Summary of this case from Bell v. WestOpinion
54619.
SUBMITTED OCTOBER 11, 1977.
DECIDED DECEMBER 1, 1977.
Action for damages. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Broome.
Charles A. Pemberton, for appellants.
Murray Temple, William D. Temple, William A. Dinges, for appellee.
This is an action for damages arising out of an automobile collision. The complaint alleged negligence on the part of Greg Busby, the driver of one of the automobiles involved, and sought to impose liability upon his father, Chester Busby, under the family purpose doctrine. Summary judgment was granted to the father, and the plaintiffs appeal.
The defendants filed affidavits stating that Greg Busby was emancipated, self-supporting and did not reside at the family home; that he purchased the automobile with his own funds and maintained it with his own funds; that the father had no control over the use of the vehicle; and that it was not driven for the benefit of the father or the family. The plaintiffs responded with a transcript of a police court hearing in which Greg Busby testified that he owned the car but that it was in his father's name.
"Even if it were conceded that defendant [father] was the owner of the vehicle, the case would not turn on this point, as it would not disprove the uncontradicted evidence showing that the son as an emancipated minor had the right to and did exercise exclusive authority and control over the vehicle. [Cit.]" Calhoun v. Eaves, 114 Ga. App. 756, 761 ( 152 S.E.2d 805) (1966). The grant of summary judgment to the father was authorized. See Baker v. Shockey, 93 Ga. App. 595 (2) ( 92 S.E.2d 314) (1956); Durrett v. Farrar, 130 Ga. App. 298, 300 ( 203 S.E.2d 265) (1973).
Judgment affirmed. Shulman and Birdsong, JJ., concur.