Converse v. O'Keefe, 56632
| Decision Date | 11 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 56632,56632 |
| Parties | CONVERSE et al. v. O'KEEFE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Ross & Finch, Charles E. McCranie, Atlanta, for appellants.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Morris Weinberg, Jr., Eugene G. Partain, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellants' appeal concerns the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the propriety of the admission of certain evidence, and the correctness of the trial court's charge. We find no harmful error and affirm.
Appellants, husband and wife, sued for damages brought on by a collision between a car driven by Mrs. Converse and one driven by appellee O'Keefe. The evidence introduced at trial authorized jury findings that Mrs. Converse, after having seen O'Keefe proceeding along behind her, made a sudden, unsignaled stop in order to avoid hitting a car which had halted in front of her, that the car in front of her moved on, and that O'Keefe's car struck Mrs. Converse's in the rear. According to Mrs. Converse, O'Keefe was traveling at a speed of about 30 miles per hour at the time she sighted him. The evidence also warranted jury findings that the highway in front of Mrs. Converse was clear of traffic at the moment of impact; that, just before the accident, O'Keefe was traveling at a speed of 10 miles per hour and at a distance of about 2 car lengths from Mrs. Converse's car; and that O'Keefe, not realizing until too late that Mrs. Converse had stopped, braked to no avail and struck her while he was traveling at a speed of 5 miles per hour.
1. Contrary to appellants' contention, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict for appellees. The jury might properly have concluded, for instance, that Mrs. Converse negligently failed to signal her stop and that that negligence was greater than the negligence of O'Keefe. See Baggett v. Jackson, 79 Ga.App. 460(3), 54 S.E.2d 146 (1949). " " Malcom v. Malcolm, 112 Ga.App. 151, 155, 144 S.E.2d 188, 192 (1965).
Alternatively, the jury was authorized to conclude that Mrs. Converse should have been aware of O'Keefe's negligence and avoided its consequences. Baggett v. Jackson, supra. Mrs. Converse admitted she sighted O'Keefe's car Before she stopped. Also, the evidence indicated that, at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithwick v. Campbell
...Smithwick, the jury could have legitimately concluded that Campbell was not following too closely.5 See Converse v. O'Keefe , 148 Ga. App. 675, 676 (1), 252 S.E.2d 92 (1979) (where the defendant was traveling at a speed of 10 miles per hour and at a distance of about two car-lengths from th......
-
Lissmore v. Kincade
...negligence was greater than either the negligence of defendant Kincade or the negligence of defendant Norman. See Converse v. O'Keefe, 148 Ga.App. 675, 676(1), 252 S.E.2d 92. This conclusion is supported by defendant Norman's testimony that Ms. Cornelius came "to a rapid stop" in the roadwa......
-
Davis v. Glaze, s. 74126
...inadmissible evidence of the same fact is also admitted." Glass v. Lowery, 168 Ga.App. 153, 308 S.E.2d 616 (1983); Converse v. O'Keefe, 148 Ga.App. 675, 252 S.E.2d 92 (1979). We find this enumeration of error devoid of 7. As with Dr. Davis' fourth enumeration of error, and for the same reas......
-
Palmore v. Stapleton
...manner, is not chargeable with negligence.' " Bryant v. Ga. R. etc. Co., 162 Ga. 511, 517, 134 S.E. 319 (1926); Converse v. O'Keefe, 148 Ga.App. 675, 252 S.E.2d 92 (1979). The issues of accident and sudden emergency were raised by the evidence, and the trial court correctly charged the jury......