Under the facts of this case, the trial judge properly directed a verdict for the defendant.
ARGUED JUNE 10, 1966 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1966.
This case arose out of an automobile collision between the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding and the 4th car in line of a number traveling in the opposite direction. The plaintiff sued the driver of the 5th car in the line. The cars in line were following the car of a bride and groom.
On the trial of the case the uncontradicted evidence showed that the defendant's vehicle had not collided with that in which plaintiff was riding nor had defendant by any act of collisive force contributed to plaintiff's injuries. In response to the query of the court, these facts were admitted by the appellant in the oral argument before this court.
Following the trial court's grant of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, the plaintiff appealed on the theory that the court erred in the grant since all of the cars in the line were engaged in "a joint venture or joint undertaking or conspiracy of sorts, and that each and every person involved can be held jointly and severally liable for the result of their negligence in creating a dangerous situation that was the proximate cause of appellant's injuries."
BELL, Presiding Judge.
In order for a plaintiff to be permitted by law to recover in a tort action based on negligence the evidence must show four essential elements. These are: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and, (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff's legally protected interests as a result of the defendant's breach of the legal duty. Lee Street Auto Sales v. Warren, 102 Ga. App. 345, 347 (1) ( 116 S.E.2d 243). Cf. Prosser on Torts, 3d Ed. § 30.
Here the finding is demanded as a matter of law that at least the third essential element was totally absent from the case, as the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the evidence is that the defendant did not share in producing the plaintiff's injuries. Thus there is no causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's injury. Further, this is not a case where the negligence of the other drivers of the cars in line may be legally attributable to the defendant. The evidence was silent regarding any agency relationship, and totally failed to show a joint enterprise, since it did not suggest that any of the drivers of the cars in line had any right to control, direct, or govern the operation and running of any of the vehicles other than his own. Fuller v. Mills, 36 Ga. App. 357 ( 136 S.E. 807); Holland v. Boyett, 212 Ga. 458 ( 93 S.E.2d 662).
The trial judge properly directed the verdict for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed. Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.