Charles v. Raine
| Citation | 107 S.E.2d 566,99 Ga.App. 1 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 37448,37448,2 |
| Parties | J. Shelly CHARLES v. Lamar RAINE, by Next Friend |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by the Court
Questions of diligence and negligence, whose negligence and what negligence was the proximate cause of an injury, are questions peculiarly for the determination of a jury.
Lamar Raine, by John Raine as next friend, brought suit against Shelly Charles individually and d/b/a Sandy Springs Farm. The petition alleged substantially as follow: Paragraph 1 alleges jurisdiction. Paragraph 2 alleges that as a part of the defendant's business he conducted a farm for the purpose of maintaining riding horses for the use of the general public on a contractual basis. Paragraph 3 alleges that prior to June 26, 1957, Mrs. John Stone owned a horse named Bit of Regret which she boarded at the defendant's farm for $25 a month. Paragraph 4 alleges that on June 25, 1957, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby Bit of Regret would be maintained and available to his family for riding purposes for $60 a month, which sum was paid to the defendant by Mrs. Stone and the plaintiff. Paragraph 5 alleges that on or about August 15, 1957, the plaintiff made arrangements with the defendant to have said horse available for the plaintiff on said date. Paragraph 6 alleges that at all times material hereto the defendant had in his employ one agent and servant, known as James, on his premises for the purpose of assisting the defendant's customers in their recreation of horseback riding. Paragraph 7 alleges that on said date the agent and servant James was informed that the child and her father desired to ride said horse and James saddled and made ready said horse. Paragraph 8 alleges that the plaintiff father mounted the horse and rode around the riding ring once or twice, whereupon the right stirrup of the saddle became disconnected and came off. Paragraph 9 alleges that the agent and servant James fixed the stirrup and stated to the plaintiff father that the stirrup had been improperly fastened to the saddle; that the child then mounted the horse and rode around the riding tract a time or two, the horse then traveling at a slow walk, whereupon the right stirrup of the saddle became disconnected from the saddle causing the child to fall to the ground immediately under the horse and the horse stepped upon the child inflicting serious injuries. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 describe the injuries allegedly received by the child who was eight years old at the time. Paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 allege that the defendant was negligent in certain described particulars for which the plaintiff sues for $10,000.
The defendant demurred substantially as follows: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 demur generally to the plaintiff's petition upon the grounds that it does not set forth a cause of action against the defendant; that the negligence complained of was not the proximate cause of the injuries; that it affirmatively appears that the injuries were not due to any negligence on the part of the defendant and that it is affirmatively shown on the face of the petition that the injuries were the result of the negligence of the child's next friend, John Raines. Paragraph 5 specially demurs to paragraph 2 on the grounds that it is not alleged in said paragraph or elsewhere in said petition how and in what manner and for what purposes the defendant was conducting any business or how and in what manner and under what conditions the defendant permitted the general public to ride horses on said farm, and further demurs specially to said paragraph on the ground that the terms of the 'contractual relationship' are not detailed. Paragraph 6 specially demurs to paragraph 4 on the grounds that a copy of said agreement relating to Mrs. Stone's horse is not attached to said petition as an exhibit, and all material details of the agreement are not alleged and set forth in said paragraph. Paragraph 7 specially demurs to paragraph 5 on the ground that it is not alleged in said paragraph or elsewhere in said petition how and in what manner the plaintiff father made arrangements for the defendant to have sade horse available nor is it alleged what arrangements were made with the defendant, nor is it specifically alleged with whom the arrangements were made. Paragraph 8 specially demurs to paragraph 7 on the ground that it is not alleged who informed 'James' of the plaintiff's desire to ride said horse, nor is it alleged who instructed or ordered said servant to saddle said horse. Paragraph 9 specially demurs to paragraph 9 and to the words 'stated to plaintiff's father that stirrup had been improperly fastened to the saddle,' upon the grounds that said allegation is of no probative value, is not germane and is irrelevant and immaterial. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 demur specially to those subparagraphs of paragraph 14 alleging negligence of the defendant in certain particulars on the grounds that it is not stated in said subparagraphs or elsewhere in said petition how and in what manner the defendant was under the obligation to use ordinary care to protect the plaintiff and how and in what manner the defendant failed to exercise the same; how and in what manner said saddle was defective and faulty; under what circumstances the defendant furnished the plaintiff with a saddle; how and in what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Wright
...and was proper under the facts of the instant case. Atlanta etc. Rd. Co. v. Loftin, 67 Ga.App. 601, 21 S.E.2d 290; Charles v. Raine, 99 Ga.App. 1, 5, 107 S.E.2d 566; Fallaw v. Hobbs, 113 Ga.App. 181, 182, 147 S.E.2d 517; Walden v. Coleman, 217 Ga. 599, 603, 605, 124 S.E.2d 4. It was not err......
-
Beadles v. Smith, 39374
...thereto was the proximate cause of his injuries. Since questions of causation and proximate cause are for the jury (Charles v. Raine, 99 Ga.App. 1, 107 S.E.2d 566), it was not error to overrule these grounds of demurrer. 4. Special demurrer numbered 8 attacks allegations that defendants had......
-
Gordon v. Carter, 47130
...S.E.2d 178; Bailey v. Wilson, 100 Ga.App. 405, 111 S.E.2d 106; Sheppard v. Martin, 100 Ga.App. 164, 110 S.E.2d 429; and Charles v. Raine, 99 Ga.App. 1, 107 S.E.2d 566. As was stated in Kesler v. Kesler, 219 Ga. 592(1), 134 S.E.2d 811: "It is error to direct a verdict, except where there is ......