Bussey v. Dawson
| Decision Date | 04 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24497,24497 |
| Citation | 160 S.E.2d 834,224 Ga. 191 |
| Parties | Truman BUSSEY v. Nathaniel DAWSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict in favor of the plaintiff as to the automobile collision.
Alexander, Vann & Lilly, T. Heyward Vann, Thomasville, for appellant.
A. J. Whitehurst, Frank L. Forester, Thomasville, for appellee.
The issue here is whether there was any evidence to sustain the verdict for the plaintiff in a tort action. This issue arises from a suit filed by Truman Bussey against Nathaniel Dawson in the Superior Court of Thomas County.
In that suit the plaintiff asserted that, due to the defendant's negligence in not yielding the right of way at an intersection, a collision occurred between automobiles operated by the parties, causing the plaintiff personal and property damage. The defendant denied the material allegations of the petition. Upon trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant made motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial, both of which were denied.
Thereupon, the defendant sought review by the Court of Appeals of denial of these motions. That court reversed, holding that the evidence did not authorize the finding that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause or a contributing proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, in that the facts were just as consistent with the defendant's diligence as with his negligence. Dawson v. Bussey, 117 Ga.App. 13, 159 S.E.2d 297.
We granted the plaintiff's application for certiorari.
The evidence shows a typical intersectional collision. It occurred at the intersection of Park Avenue and Loomis Street in the City of Thomasville. The plaintiff was proceeding northerly on Park Avenue, while the defendant was traveling westerly on Loomis Street. The latter street at its intersection with Park Avenue was marked with a yield sign.
An ordinance of the city provides that 'The driver of a vehicle shall stop * * * at the entrance to a through street and shall yield the right-of-way to other vehicles which have entered the intersection from the through street or which are approaching so closely on such through street as to constitute an immediate hazard * * *.'
The plaintiff estimated his speed at 20 or 25 miles per hour in approaching and entering the intersection and said he did not see the defendant's car which struck him. The maximum speed allowed there by city ordinance was 35 miles per hour.
The defendant testified that he stopped before entering the intersection, looked about 70 feet to his left and right, saw no traffic whatever, entered the intersection at a speed of about 10 miles per hour, and did not see the plaintiff's vehicle until a moment before the impact.
The collision occurred in the approximate center of the intersection. The evidence showed that the defendant's automobile struck the right side of the plaintiff's car, then turned to the right and came to a stop. It also showed that the plaintiff's automobile continued about 70 to 80 feet on its course before coming to a halt at the curb on the left.
Several witnesses estimated the speed of the vehicles based upon the physical evidence appearing after the collision. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Housing Authority of Atlanta v. Famble
...an act constitutes negligence is for the jury to decide. Eidson v. Mathews, 120 Ga.App. 711, 712(1), 172 S.E.2d 144; Bussey v. Dawson, 224 Ga. 191, 193, 160 S.E.2d 834. As stated in Garrett v. Royal Bros. Co., 225 Ga. 533, 535, 170 S.E.2d 294: " 'Questions of negligence are ordinarily pecul......
-
Aretz v. U.S.
...ordinarily questions for the factfinder. E. g. Gross v. Southern Railway Co., 414 F.2d 292, 301 (5th Cir. 1969); Bussey v. Dawson, 224 Ga. 191, 193-94, 160 S.E.2d 834 (1968). In this case the district court found that the government was warned as early as 1968 and knew three months before t......
-
Berman v. United States, Civ. A. No. C80-1479A
...decedent is a question for the factfinder. See, e.g., Williams v. Kennedy, 240 Ga. 163, 240 S.E.2d 51 (1977); Bussey v. Dawson, 224 Ga. 191, 193, 160 S.E.2d 834 (1968). In the course of deciding the summary judgment motion as respects the liability of the FAA for failure to supervise, the c......
-
GEICO Indemnity Company v. Whiteside
...for all of the consequences resulting from the intervening act." (citation and punctuation omitted.)); see also Bussey v. Dawson , 224 Ga. 191, 193, 160 S.E.2d 834 (1968) ("[Q]uestions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence[,] and proximate cause are peculiarly matters for the ju......