Carrandi v. Sanders, 76864
Decision Date | 27 September 1988 |
Docket Number | No. 76864,76864 |
Citation | 373 S.E.2d 661,188 Ga.App. 562 |
Parties | CARRANDI, et al. v. SANDERS, et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Albert B. Wallace, Jonesboro, for appellants.
M. David Merritt, Atlanta, for appellees.
An automobile driven by appellant-plaintiff Anita Carrandi and owned by her sister, appellant-plaintiff Alisa Carrandi, collided with a truck driven by appellee-defendant David Sanders and owned by his father, appellee-defendant James Sanders. Appellants, by their mother as next friend, brought suit, alleging that appellee David Sanders' negligent operation of the truck was the proximate cause of the collision and that appellee James Sanders was vicariously liable for his son's negligence under the family purpose doctrine.
Appellees answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint. The case proceeded to trial before a jury and a verdict in favor of appellees was returned. The trial court entered judgment for appellees. Appellants bring this appeal from the trial court's denial of their motion for new trial.
1. Appellants enumerate as error the trial court's giving of an instruction to the jury on the avoidance doctrine.
A review of the transcript shows the following: Prior to the collision, appellant Anita Carrandi was driving in the proper lane of traffic and at a speed well within the posted speed limit. The collision occurred when appellee David Sanders attempted to cross the highway from an adjacent private driveway. The evidence shows that he drove the truck directly into the path of the on-coming car driven by appellant Anita Carrandi, and that she attempted to stop the automobile so as to avoid the collision.
Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga.App. 668, 674(6), 16 S.E.2d 214 (1941). Thus, the focus of the applicability of the avoidance doctrine in the present case would be upon the acts or omissions of appellant Anita Carrandi subsequent to the alleged negligence of appellee David Sanders in pulling out into the highway from the driveway. To authorize a charge on the avoidance doctrine, there ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...(Citations omitted; emphasis in original.) Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga.App. 668, 674, 16 S.E.2d 214 (1941); see also Carrandi v. Sanders, 188 Ga.App. 562, 373 S.E.2d 661 (1988) (clarifying the avoidance One critical aspect of this analysis is that evidence of the plaintiff's own negligence no l......
-
Ellis v. Dalton
...knew or should have known of the active negligence of the defendant and failed to take action to avoid it. Carrandi v. Sanders, 188 Ga.App. 562(1), 373 S.E.2d 661 (1988). There is no evidence whatsoever in the record of this case to support a finding that appellant was aware of appellee's a......
-
Goss v. Total Chipping, Inc., A96A0051
...could have avoided the accident, it is reversible error to instruct the jury on the avoidance doctrine. See Carrandi v. Sanders, 188 Ga.App. 562(1), 563-564, 373 S.E.2d 661 (1988). But to justify a charge on any given subject, direct evidence on that point is not necessary. It is sufficient......
-
Axom v. Wendy's Intern., Inc.
...could have avoided the accident, it is reversible error to instruct the jury on the avoidance doctrine. See Carrandi v. Sanders, 188 Ga.App. 562, 563-564(1), 373 S.E.2d 661 (1988). "But to justify a charge on any given subject, direct evidence on that point is not necessary. It is sufficien......