City Of Columbus v. Griggs
| Decision Date | 24 May 1901 |
| Citation | 38 S.E. 953,113 Ga. 597 |
| Parties | CITY OF COLUMBUS . v. GRIGGS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
DEFECTIVE STREETS—CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.
1. One who knowingly and voluntarily takes a risk of physical injury, the danger of which is so obvious that the act of taking such risk, in and of itself, amounts to a failure to exercise ordinary care and diligence for his own safety, cannot hold another liable for damages resulting from a hurt thus occasioned, although the same may be in part attributable to the latter's negligence.
2. Taking that view of the evidence which is most favorable to the plaintiff in the present case, it falls within the principle above announced, and consequently the verdict against the defendant was wholly unauthorized.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Muscogee county; W. B. Butt, Judge.
Action by W. H. Griggs against the city of Columbus. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
Francis D. Peabody and L. F. Garrard, for plaintiff in error.
McNeil & Levy, for defendant in error.
This case comes here upon exceptions to a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial which contains many grounds. It is unnecessary to pass upon them in detail, for the verdict was wholly unwarranted by the evidence, and it is apparent from the record that the case cannot at another hearing present any aspect materially different from that In which it now appears. Dr. Griggs brought an action against the city of Columbus for personal injuries resulting from its alleged negligence in failing to put in a safe condition for travel a portion of a street which had been rendered unsafe by reason of certain work done therein, with the city's permission, by a railway company. Pending the action the plaintiff died, and his administratrix was made a party in his stead. Taking the most favorable view of the evidence which could be fairly entertained in her behalf, it affirmatively appeared that it was palpably and obviously dangerous to attempt to drive at night over that place In the street at which the injury occurred. Nevertheless, the deceased, with full and accurate knowledge of this fact, voluntarily, on a very dark night, accompanied by another who had like knowledge, in a buggy with the latter, undertook to drive over that place. As a result, the buggy was thrown over an embankment, and Dr. Griggs was seriously injured. Both occupants of the buggy were perfectly familiar with the situation, and fully aware of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stukes v. Trowell, 44179
...took a risk the danger of which, to any person of common prudence, would have been plain and obvious.' City of Columbus v. Griggs, 113 Ga. 597, 598, 38 S.E. 953, 954. In that case it appeared that on a dark night the plaintiff and his companion had gone out in a buggy over a street where wo......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Hogan
... ... incidental thereto, and cannot afterwards complain if he is ... injured." So, in City of Columbus v. Griggs, ... 113 Ga. 597, 38 S.E. 953, 84 Am.St.Rep. 257, it was held: ... "One who ... ...
-
Evans v. City of Atlanta
... ... from recovering damages, and cites as controlling the cases ... of Sheats v. Rome, 92 Ga. 535, 17 S.E. 922, City ... of Columbus v. Griggs, 113 Ga. 597, 38 S.E. 953, 84 ... Am.St.Rep. 257, and Kent v. Southern Bell Tel. Co., ... 120 Ga. 980, 48 S.E. 399. In the Shears Case, ... ...
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Hogan
...to have assumed the risk incidental thereto, and cannot afterwards complain if he is injured." So, in City of Columbus v. Griggs, 113 Ga. 597, 38 S. E. 953, 84 Am. St. Rep. 257, It was held: "One who knowingly and voluntarily takes a risk of physical injury, the danger of which is so obviou......