Bolden v. Barnes
| Decision Date | 28 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 43305,No. 1,43305,1 |
| Citation | 162 S.E.2d 307,117 Ga.App. 862 |
| Parties | Randall BOLDEN v. Doris L. BARNES |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Pittman & Kinney, John T. Avrett, Dalton, for appellant.
Cook & Palmour, A. Cecil Palmour, Summerville, Morgan & Garner, Chartanooga, Tenn, for for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
We are called upon here to decide whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment in an action brought against him by plaintiff for the wrongful death of her husband.
The plaintiff's petition alleged that her husband took his pick-up truck to defendant's place of business for repairs; that defendant permitted the truck to remain in close proximity to a red-hot stove after disconnecting the truck's fuel lines; that defendant's employee, while working on the left side of the truck, the same side where the stove was located, also had the air hose on that side blowing air through the gas line; that defendant's employee failed to warn plaintiff's husband that he was blowing air through that part of the gas line running into the gas tank and failed to warn him of the potential danger of doing so; and that defendant's employee, while watching plaintiff's husband proceed to and reach out to remove the cap from the truck's gas tank, did not warn him that he had built up pressure in the gas tank with the air hose.
The petition alleged that when plaintiff's husband removed the cap from the gas tank in which a tremendous pressure had been created by the air hose, the pressure caused the gasoline from the gas tank to gush out upon plaintiff's husband's face and body, causing him to involuntarily and instinctively step backward against the hot stove which ignited his clothing and body from which he suffered severe burns resulting in his death.
In his answer defendant admitted that his employee was blowing air into the line with an air hose as decedent walked toward the back of the truck, but denied that the employee saw plaintiff's husband as he removed the cap from the tank. Defendant further answered the petition averring that he and his employee were guilty of no negligence; that decedent knew that defendant's employee had squirted air into the gas lines and that the tank contained pressure; and that decedent dies as a result of his own negligence and failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety in removing the gas cap while the tank contained pressure; but that if decedent's death did not result from his own negligence or failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, then it was the result of an accident.
The evidence presented for determination of the motion consisted of the depositions and affidavits of the defendant, Randall Bolden, and his employee, Amos Bolden. The deposition of the plaintiff was also before the court.
The evidence was that decedent could not keep the engine in his truck running and had defendant tow it to the station. It was then pushed inside the station and the doors closed behind it because the day was very cold. The truck was placed within 6 or 8 feet of a kerosene heater. The decedent indicated that he thought the trouble was in the fuel pump and he, with his own tools and working by himself, disconnected the fuel line at the fuel pump. He then came and told defendant's employee that no gas would come out. The employee told him that he would be there in a minute and blow out the gas line, whereupon he did come in and with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Standard Oil Co. v. Harris, s. 44523
...Dec. 5, 1969. Syllabus by the Court 1. Negligence on the part of the defendant Bolden was eliminated by the holding in Bolden v. Barnes, 117 Ga.App. 862, 162 S.E.2d 307. That being true, no verdict against him could stand and his motion for summary judgment should have been 2. Since it was ......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Williams
...'is palpably clear, plain and indisputable,' the court will resolve the matter without the intervention of a jury. Bolden v. Barnes, 117 Ga.App. 862, 162 S.E.2d 307; Benefield v. McDonough Construction Co., 106 Ga.App. 194, 126 S.E.2d 704. See e.g., Williams v. Gibbs, 123 Ga.App. 677, 182 S......
-
Anderson v. Saffold, 49990
...'is palpably clear, plain and indisputable,' the court will resolve the matter without the intervention of a jury. Bolden v. Barnes, 117 Ga.App. 862, 162 S.E.2d 307; Benefield v. McDonough Construction Co., 106 Ga.App. 194, 126 S.E.2d 704. See e.g. Williams v. Gibbs, 123 Ga.App. 677, 182 S.......
-
Watson v. General Mechanical Services, Inc.
...issues of fact, they may be decided as a matter of law where the relevant facts are plain and indisputable. Bolden v. Barnes, 117 Ga.App. 862, 863-864, 162 S.E.2d 307 (1968). Under the present facts, we conclude as a matter of law that the act of putting metal parts in the trash container m......