Curry v. Durden
| Decision Date | 10 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 38745,38745,2 |
| Citation | 118 S.E.2d 871,103 Ga.App. 371 |
| Parties | Mary CURRY v. Lvey DURDEN et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Findley, Shea, Friedman, Gannam, Head & Buchsbaum, Michael J. Gannam, Savannah, Spivey & Carlton, Milton A. Carlton, Swainsboro, for plaintiff in error.
Sharpe & Sharpe, T. Malone Sharpe, Lyons, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. 'In order for the directing of a verdict to be error, it must appear that there was some evidence, together with all reasonable deductions and inferences from it, to support a verdict for the party against whom it was directed and in determining this question the evidence must be construed in its light most favorable to the party against whom it was directed.' Whitaker v. Paden, 78 Ga.App. 145, 50 S.E.2d 774.
2. The evidence in this case clearly shows that the pedestrian plaintiff, an elderly woman, crossed a street heavily laden with traffic moving in a westerly direction only, and that immediately before or during the process of stepping up on the curb she came in contact with the defendant's automobile and suffered a broken hip and other injuries. There was testimony by a number of witnesses that the plaintiff, as she stepped onto the curb, fell back against the left rear door and fender of the defendant's automobile and that the defendant was in no way negligent. However, the plaintiff testified that the defendant hit her with the car; that the car was back of her and struck her right hip at a time when she had one foot in the gutter and the other on the curb. Another witness testified that he heard the impact and, looking up, saw the plaintiff lying in front of the automobile, about four feet in front of the left front bumper, and saw the driver run to the front bumper of her car, and lift the plaintiff up to put her on the sidewalk. This testimony was in direct conflict with that of the witnesses for the defendants who were at the scene, all of whom swore that the plaintiff fell against the side of the car, and that the car did not back up after the impact. Construed in favor of the losing party, it is sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the plaintiff, while partially in the street, was struck by the automobile, or whether she fell back against the automobile. Frazier v. Georgia R. & Banking Co., 108 Ga. 807(1), 33 S.E. 996 along with other cases relied upon by the defendants in error, states the rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarty v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 39629
...5, 126 S.E. 445. The evidence must be construed most favorably to the party opposing the motion for directed verdict (Curry v. Durden, 103 Ga.App. 371(1), 118 S.E.2d 871) or motion for summary judgment. Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 318(6), 322. The party opposing the m......
-
Benson v. Action Elec. Co., Inc.
...126 S.E.2d 442. The evidence must be construed most favorably to the party opposing the motion for directed verdict (Curry v. Durden, 103 Ga.App. 371(1), 118 S.E.2d 871) or motion for summary judgment. Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 8 Cir., 139 F.2d 318(6), 322. The party opposing the mo......
-
Carr v. Jacuzzi Bros., Inc.
...construed most favorably towards the party opposing the motion. Whitaker v. Paden, 78 Ga.App. 145(1), 50 S.E.2d 774; Curry v. Durden, 103 Ga.App. 371(1), 118 S.E.2d 871; Northwestern University v. Crisp, 211 Ga. 636, 647, 88 S.E.2d While there is authority that suggests an express warranty ......
-
Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Sellers
...Richardson v. Barrett, 90 Ga.App. 714(2), 84 S.E.2d 120, supra, and against the movant on motion for directed verdict. Curry v. Durden, 103 Ga.App. 371(1), 118 S.E.2d 871; McCarty v. National Life etc., Ins. Co., 107 Ga.App. 178, 179, 129 S.E.2d 408. For a number of illustrations of the app......