Barlow v. Veber
| Decision Date | 28 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 66905,66905 |
| Citation | 311 S.E.2d 501,169 Ga.App. 65 |
| Parties | BARLOW v. VEBER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
L.Z. Dozier, Jr., Macon, for appellant.
Robert S. Slocumb, Macon, for appellee.
Personal Injury. The facts in this case reflect that several members of the Barlow family were proceeding from their home to a fishfry. In the father's pick-up truck, a rear wheel became defective (by losing lug bolts and nuts). The pick-up truck was pulled off for repairs to the side of the road, apparently at least partially still on one lane of the two-lane road. The car in which Philip Barlow was riding was ahead of the vehicle in which his father was riding. When the lead vehicle became aware that the pick-up was no longer following, the lead car turned around to determine the problem. The car in which Philip was riding soon located the pick-up and pulled up directly behind the truck and parked. The driver (another Barlow) left the lights on to illuminate the repair efforts on the truck. Philip and another remained in the back seat of the car while the others dismounted in order to render repair assistance. Philip's car likewise was at least partially on the pavement.
At about the same time, a car occupied by Kreg Veber and four other youths rounded a curve on a decline leading to the "T" intersection at which the pick-up and second car were stopped, in the same lane in which Veber was proceeding. Though the evidence was in dispute, the jury could believe under the evidence that the Veber car was proceeding at 50 mph or less in a 55 mile zone. There was evidence that the two stopped vehicles would not have been seen by another driver rounding the curve until approximately within 250-300 feet. Veber testified (as did other passengers in the Veber vehicle) that red lights were observed in the highway ahead but Veber initially thought the vehicles were moving. As soon as he realized the vehicles were not moving, he applied brakes. In spite of a skid in excess of 90 feet, the Veber vehicle crashed into the back of the stopped vehicle occupied by Philip Barlow causing him to be thrown violently about within the car and resulting in his personal injury.
Evidence was submitted that there was room perhaps on either the left or right side of the Barlow vehicle into which Veber could have maneuvered his car to avoid the collision. On the other hand, an expert testified that once Veber realized the imminence of a collision and "locked down" his brakes, for all reasonable purposes, the Veber vehicle was not completely under control of its operator. Likewise there was evidence that Veber had consumed some beer prior to the accident and was intermittently looking at a female passenger to his right. Other evidence contraindicated that Veber was under the influence of any intoxicants or that he was not fully aware of the danger as soon as it was capable of observation.
The jury was fully informed of the applicable principles of law and returned a verdict for the defendant-appellee Veber. Philip Barlow brings this appeal enumerating four alleged errors. Held:
1. In his first enumeration of error, Barlow complains that the trial court erred in giving a charge on the doctrine of sudden emergency, urging that the evidence did not give rise to such a defense.
We disagree. Though there was evidence which, if believed by the jury, would have supported a finding that Veber was never confronted with an emergency situation but was merely inattentive, there also was evidence that he was looking down the highway as he rounded the descending curve and saw what he believed to be one or more cars proceeding down the road in front of him. When he realized this was not the situation, he immediately applied what would be an acceptable and customary solution namely trying to brake the car's forward speed as quickly as possible.
The rule of sudden emergency is that one who in a sudden emergency acts according to his best judgment, or who because of want of time in which to form a judgment, acts in the most apparently judicious manner, is not chargeable with negligence. Bryant v. Ga. R. etc. Co., 162 Ga. 511, 517, 134 S.E. 319; Ware v. Alston, 112 Ga.App. 627, 629, 145 S.E.2d 721. The doctrine of emergency refers to those acts which occur immediately following the apprehension of the danger or crisis and before there is time for careful consideration or reflection. Stripling v. Calhoun, 98 Ga.App. 354, 357, 105 S.E.2d 923. This requires that the person confronted by the emergency have the opportunity to exercise one of several reasonable alternative courses of action. In the absence of such factors, there can be no conduct to which to apply the standard and the doctrine is inapplicable. Ford v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Storer Communications, Inc. v. Burns
...collision with the Suburban. It is assumed at this stage that this was not the result of Burns' negligence. See Barlow v. Veber, 169 Ga.App. 65, 66(1), 311 S.E.2d 501 (1983); Ford v. Pinckney, 138 Ga.App. 714, 716(3)(b), 227 S.E.2d 430 Given the fact that, for whatever reason, Burns was ine......
-
Davis v. Johnson
...merely to determine if there is sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict and judgment. (Citations omitted.) Barlow v. Veber, 169 Ga.App. 65, 67-68(3), 311 S.E.2d 501 (1983). See also Quay v. Heritage Financial, 274 Ga.App. 358, 362-363(4), 617 S.E.2d 618 (2005). So viewed, we hold that ......
-
Howard v. State
...for finding appellant to have been a less safe driver, and we may not speculate as to the jury's ruminations. See Barlow v. Veber, 169 Ga.App. 65(3), 311 S.E.2d 501 (1983). Therefore, appellant's convictions for the included offenses must be stricken, and he may not be sentenced for either ......
-
Beringause v. Fogleman Truck Lines, Inc.
...to form a judgment, acts in the most apparently judicious manner, is not chargeable with negligence. [Cits.]" Barlow v. Veber, 169 Ga.App. 65, 66(1), 311 S.E.2d 501 (1983). " ' "Whether an emergency existed or not, that issue, like all questions of diligence, negligence, contributory neglig......