Brown and the corporation as to the operation of the restaurant or the truck. On appeal, Williams contends that the trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that no joint venture or agency relationship existed between Brown and the corporation at the time of the collision. Ajoint venture arises “where two or more parties combine their property or labor, or both, in a joint undertaking for profit, with rights of mutual control (provided the arrangement does not establish a partnership), so as to render all joint venturers liable for the negligence of the other.” (Citation omitted.) Kissun v. Humana, 267 Ga. 419, 420 (479 SE2d 751) (1997). The right to exercise mutual control is a crucial part of a joint venture. See Rossi v. Oxley, 269 Ga. 82, 83 (1), (2) (495 SE2d 39) (1998) (<HOLDING>). For ajoint venture to exist, “[tjhere must be
holding strict control test inapplicable in determining the scope of immunity for physicians under federal law because medical ethics require physicians to exercise independent judgment in the best interest of their patients holding that there was no joint venture as a matter of law between physicians who agreed to be oncall for one another at a hospital in the absence of evidence that the physicians controlled each others professional judgment in the treatment of patients holding that physicians as agents of the hospital are indistinguishable from the hospital for immunity purposes under the lgaa holding that treating physicians testimony was properly discounted when it was inconsistent with physicians own treatment reports and the record as a whole and appeared to be based on patients subjective complaints holding in a medicalmalpractice case that defendant hospital and physicians failure to sufficiently monitor a suicidal patient who slipped out of restraints left the hospital and committed suicide the next day was not the proximate cause of the patients death as a matter of law