Carroll v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 06 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 43009,No. 3,43009,3 |
| Citation | 158 S.E.2d 480,116 Ga.App. 575 |
| Parties | John O. CARROLL v. Charlotte B. MORRISON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Marson G. Dunaway, Jr., Rockmart, for appellant.
James I. Parker, Cedartown, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. 'Where it appeared that the plaintiff stopped her automobile at an intersecting street, observed defendant approaching from her left at a distance of some 400 feet and at an apparent speed that she judged would make it safe for her to proceed across the intersection, but that she either misjudged defendant's distance away or his speed, which may have been in excess of that permitted by law, resulting in a collision of the vehicles in the intersection * * * the matter should have been submitted to the jury under the comparative negligence doctrine.' Yandle v. Alexander, 116 Ga.App. 165, 156 S.e.2d 504 (7/12/67). The same rule applies where, as here, the plaintiff having the right of way on a highway but probably traveling in excess of 60 miles per hour collided with the defendant's vehicle which, after stopping and after the defendant driver had actually observed the plaintiff on his left approaching from what appeared to him to be a safe distance away, entered the intersection at a very slow rate of speed and the two vehicles collided. In the Yandle case this court reversed a verdict directed for the defendant; here the defendant appellant contends that a verdict in his favor was demanded. The court properly left the matter for determination by the jury.
2. It is further contended, both as applied to the general grounds of the motion for new trial and instructions given in that connection, that the plaintiff could not recover the value of the automobile which was sued for as one of her items of damage. The plaintiff pleaded and testified on direct examination that the car belonged to her. On cross examination she stated that her husband had purchased it for her and that it was in both their names. The plaintiff objected to certain instructions on the ground that We think this objection goes only to the question of ownership by tenants in common, and the right of less than all to sue for property held jointly. Code § 3-111 provides: 'A tenant in common need not join his cotenant, but may sue separately for his interest, and the judgment in such case shall affect only himself.' The objection was without merit.
3. One who has an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Kirby, s. 43112
...error appears. Barnes v. Barnes, 224 Ga. 92(3), 160 S.E.2d 391; Foskey v. State, 116 Ga.App. 334(2), 157 S.E.2d 314; Carroll v. Morrison, 116 Ga.App. 575(4), 158 S.E.2d 480; Gilmore v. State, 117 Ga.App. 67(1), 159 S.E.2d As we understand the dissent, it is not found, as contended, that the......
-
Moon v. State, 44451
...It does not meet the requirement laid down in Elam v. Atlantic C.L.R. Co., 115 Ga.App. 656(7), 155 S.E.2d 644; Carroll v. Morrison, 116 Ga.App. 575(4), 158 S.E.2d 480. (b) Error is enumerated on failure of the court to 'charge the law of a misdemeanor,' and on 'failure to charge the punishm......
-
Dossie v. Sherwood.
...as lost earnings carpenter's reduction in income derived from activities as an independent contractor); Carroll v. Morrison, 116 Ga.App. 575, 576(3), 158 S.E.2d 480 (1967) (including as lost earnings waitress's estimated loss of tips). 9. See, e.g., Gipson, 232 Ga.App. at 236, 501 S.E.2d 57......
-
Foy v. Edwards, 43724.
...Pretermitting the matter of whether the objection was sufficient in form or substance to meet the requirements of Carroll v. Morrison, 116 Ga. App. 575 (4) (158 SE2d 480), we observe that while the statute provides that "all tires shall have measurable tread, free from any breaks," there wa......