Atlanta Car for Hire Ass'n v. Ware
| Citation | 112 Ga.App. 668,145 S.E.2d 813 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 41618,No. 1,41618,1 |
| Parties | ATLANTA CAR FOR HIRE ASSOCIATION et al. v. Seaborn WARE, Jr |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where in an intersection collision case it appears that a plaintiff having the right of way and not otherwise negligent entered an intersection and collided with the car of a defendant who was crossing the intersection on a street on which stop signs informed motorists traveling thereon to yield the right of way, even though the defendant stopped in obedience to the sign before entering the intersection, if he then continued across it in the path of the vehicle having the right of way and his vehicle was struck in consequence of that act, nothing more appearing, a verdict for the plaintiff is authorized.
2. The evidence on the trial of the case demands a finding that the taxicab driver, Brooks, was an independent contractor as to the operation of his taxi, and was not a servant or agent of the co-defendant Atlanta Car for Hire Association, Inc. The verdict and judgment against the latter were unauthorized.
3. The testimony objected to was not subject to the objection that it injected the issue of insurance into the case.
Shelton Ware, Jr., brought an action in the Civil Court of Fulton County for damage to his automobile which, while driven by his wife, was involved in an intersection collision. He named as defendants Bailey Brooks, the operator of the taxi which collided with the Ware car, Gordon Street Car for Hire, and Atlanta Car for Hire Association, Inc. No demurrers were filed. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.
Atkins & Atkins, Ben S. Atkins, Atlanta, for appellants.
George B. Hooks, Atlanta, for appellee.
1. The testimony of Mrs. Ware was to the effect that she was proceeding south on Ashby Street in the City of Atlanta in the early morning, all automobiles involved having lights on, and as she approached the intersection of Ashby and Neal Streets, having the right of way, an automobile parked on the opposite side of Ashby Street facing north pulled out from a parallel parking position angling toward her in such manner that the lights momentarily blinded her view of the intersection. She pulled to the extreme right and entered the intersection, traveling at 28 miles per hour which was a permissible speed. She then saw the defendant's taxi for the first time directly in front of her, proceeding west, the front of the taxi being just at the point of entry between the intersection and the west side of Neal Street. She hit the side of the taxi back of the right rear wheel. Brooks had crossed Neal Street but she was unable to say whether or not he had stopped at the stop sign facing Ashby from Neal, and whether or not he was traveling at an unlawful rate of speed. Brooks testified that he did stop at the stop sign, that he saw the Ware car about a block down the street, and that as he crossed the intersection she pulled her car to the right curb, entered the intersection, and hit the rear of his car; had she not pulled to the right he would have cleared the interesection without being hit. He did not know at what speed she was traveling.
The evidence was sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the defendant was guilty of a violation of Code Ann. § 68-1652 in failing to yield the right of way to another automobile having the right of way and so close to the intersection as to constitute an immediate hazard. The plaintiff was violating no traffic law and therefore had the right to anticipate that other vehicles would also obey the laws. Eddleman v. Askew, 50 Ga.App. 540, 179 S.E. 247; Sitton v. Camp, 91 Ga.App. 870, 87 S.E.2d 430. She would not of course be justified in knowingly entering the intersection at a speed which would force her into collision with another automobile already occupying it as this would be a failure to exercise ordinary care for her own safety, but the plaintiff alleged and proved that as she approached the crossing the station wagon parked facing her car across the street and one car length from the intersection angled into the road, temporarily blinding her with its lights and also forcing her as far as possible toward the right curb. Such explanation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red Top Cab Co., Inc. v. Hyder
...someone called in for a taxi would not alone be sufficient to establish that Wilson was the appellant's agent. Atlanta Car for Hire Assn. v. Ware, 112 Ga.App. 668, 145 S.E.2d 813. The case sub judice is distinguishable from English v. Yellow Cab Co., 119 Ga.App. 828, 168 S.E.2d 920, because......
-
Clark v. Atlanta Veterans Transp., Inc., 41930
...may have been similar to that which appeared in Styles v. Dennard, 97 Ga.App. 635, 104 S.E.2d 258 or Atlanta Car for Hire Assn., Inc. v. Ware, 112 Ga.App. 668(2), 145 S.E.2d 813. Indeed, it has been held, concerning an automobile, that 'The possessor of personal property is presumed to be i......
-
Collins v. Booker
...fares received from transporting passengers. See Styles v. Dennard, 97 Ga.App. 635, 104 S.E.2d 258 and Atlanta Car for Hire Association, Inc. v. Ware, 112 Ga.App. 668, 145 S.E.2d 813, holding this type of arrangement to be one or independent contractor between the association and the taxica......
-
Atlanta Car For Hire Ass'n, Inc. v. Whited, 72128
...by the plaintiff, the defendants cannot complain that the evidence unfairly prejudiced this case. See Atlanta Car For Hire v. Ware, 112 Ga.App. 668, 671(3), 145 S.E.2d 813. 3. For the reasons enunciated in Division 2 of this opinion, the defendants' third enumeration is without 4. Defendant......