Daugherty v. Pruitt
| Decision Date | 08 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41692,No. 3,41692,3 |
| Parties | John F. DAUGHERTY v. S. Willis PRUITT et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Greer, Morris & Murray, Malcolm S. Murray, Atlanta, for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This appeal is from the judgment of the trial court overruling the defendant's general and special demurrers to the plaintiff's petition which sought to recover property damages arising out of a collision of the plaintiff's automobile and that of the defendant. Held:
1. As against general demurrer, the general allegations of the petition that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep his automobile under proper control, in failing to keep his vehicle a reasonable distance to the rear of the plaintiff's stopped automobile and in driving his automobile into the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages, were sufficient to set forth a cause of action since such allegations were not contradicted by the facts alleged in the petition. Sarno v. Hoffman, 110 Ga.App. 164(1b), 138 S.E.2d 96; Stone v. McMeekin Constr. Co., 110 Ga.App. 546(7), 139 S.E.2d 421; Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Martin, 92 Ga. 161, 18 S.E. 364.
2. The petition was clearly defective in numerous particulars, however, as against special demurrer; and the trial court erred in overruling the defendant's special demurrers 3, 4 and 5 which properly called for additional information relating to the respective positions of the vehicles involved in the collision and the manner in which the collision occurred (Wright Contracting Co. v. Davis, 90 Ga.App. 548, 83 S.E.2d 232), and in overruling special demurrers 6, 7, and 8 which attacked the general allegations of the petition that the defendant was negligent in driving his automobile into the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle, in failing to keep his vehicle under proper control and in failing to drive at a reasonable distance to the rear of the plaintiff's automobile, on the grounds that the same constituted conclusions of the pleader unsupported by well pleaded facts showing how or in what manner the defendant was negligent as alleged. Seaboard A.L.R. Co. v. Hollomon, 97 Ga.App. 16, 23(7), 102 S.E.2d 185.
The trial court also erred in overruling special demurrers 9 and 10 which attacked the plaintiff's assessment of damages on the ground that the petition did not allege the market...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nathan v. Duncan
...53 S.E.2d 754; Wood v. Hub Motor Co., 110 Ga.App. 101, 107, 137 S.E.2d 674. There is similarity between this case and Daughterty v. Pruitt, 113 Ga.App. 88, 147 S.E.2d 347, as there is between it and any rear end collision case, but the records reveal there are many differences. Three were i......
- Williams v. Commercial Tire Co.
-
Maddox v. Don Pair Motors, Inc., 42928
...negligence in failing to have the car under proper control and in running into and against plaintiff's vehicle (see Daugherty v. Pruitt, 113 Ga.App. 88(1), 147 S.E.2d 347), and proof of facts from which these inferences might be drawn by the jury would go to that issue. The defendant himsel......