Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Coe v. Carroll & Carroll, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 25, 2011No. A10A1717, A10A2338Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAndrews, Judge

The undisputed evidence in this case establishes that, as a matter of law, neither the contractor Carroll nor the trucking company Griffin can be liable for the consequences of the truck driver Williams’s personal and unauthorized decision to drive past six restaurants and some miles off his route to pick up his lunch at a church. I therefore dissent to Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion.

1. It is longstanding law that where a party hires a vehicle but has

“no supervision or control of the servant’s mechanical operation thereof, and no right to discharge the driver and take over the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Jones v. Aldrich Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  2. Ellison v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
  3. Albert v. HudsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  4. Helms v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  5. Gassaway v. Precon Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2006

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API