Davenport v. Robinson, 40577

Citation109 Ga.App. 753,137 S.E.2d 380
Decision Date21 May 1964
Docket NumberNo. 40577,No. 3,40577,3
PartiesJohn L. DAVENPORT et al. v. Larry ROBINSON, by next friend
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Syllabus by the Court

In this case the extract from the charge to which complaint was brought in the special ground of the motion for new trial was addressed to the primary issue of liability which had been raised by the pleadings and the evidence. It expressed legal truths bearing impartially on the defendant and on the plaintiff. In this status the trial court properly included the extracted portion of the charge in his instructions to the jury.

The plaintiff, Robinson, sued Stevens Funeral Home, Inc. and its agent, Davenport, for alleged damages received in an automobile collision. The vehicle driven by Robinson was struck from the rear by an automobile belonging to the funeral home and being driven by the agent. The case proceeded to trial and a verdict and judgment in the amount of $650 was awarded the plaintiff against the defendants.

The agent, Davenport, testified that the car driven by the plaintiff 'changed from one lane to another * * * it changed from the curb lane to the lane towards the center line. Then that put me immediately in behind this car in the same lane. I didn't actually see it stop. I had hit it when I knew it stopped. I had followed the car probably 50 or 75 feet. I followed him * * * past the intersection * * * where the collision actually occurred. I didn't see the car stopped. I was looking off up the other street somewhere. I was looking * * * to ascertain if there was any traffic; and there was no traffic. And the first I knew that I was about to hit it, or had hit it, I had hit it.'

The plaintiff, Robinson, testified: 'As I approached this intersection, there's a yield sign there, and I yielded. There was traffic coming * * * and I yielded, and there was too much traffic for me to go on, so I stopped. I stopped. And he hit me from the rear. Whether, as I came to this intersection, I gave any signal of my intention to stop, no hand signals. The lights on the Renault were working, the brake lights.' The plaintiff did not testify that he applied the brakes so as to engage the brake lights.

The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial which consisted of the general grounds and three special grounds. Following the hearing on the motion, the trial judge granted a new trial on one special ground only. The defendant excepts to the grant of the new trial on the single special ground. No cross bill of exceptions was entered by the plaintiff.

Fullbright & Duffey, H. C. Duffey, Jr., Rome, for plaintiff in error.

E. J. Clower, Rome, for defendant in error.

BELL, Presiding Judge.

For a verdict to have been reached on the trial of the case, either for the plaintiff or for the defendant, the first essential detail the jury had to bring to a conclusion was the issue on liability. Liability in this case rested solely on the jury's determination as to who was at fault in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • O'Neil v. Moore, 43634
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 1968
    ...Also, see Washington v. Kemp, 97 Ga.App. 235, 102 S.E.2d 910; Krasner v. Mullins, 108 Ga.App. 171, 132 S.E.2d 533; Davenport v. Robinson, 109 Ga.App. 753, 755, 137 S.E.2d 380; Boner v. Soltero, 110 Ga.App. 517, 139 S.E.2d 162; Dills v. Cooper, 117 Ga.App. 95, 96(4), 159 S.E.2d Who was at fa......
  • Blalock v. Staver, 49595
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 20, 1974
    ...another is not struck, is not in and of itself sufficient to fix liability on the driver of either vehicle.' Davenport v. Robinson, 109 Ga.App. 753, 755, 137 S.E.2d 380, 381; Hay v. Carter, 94 Ga.App. 382, 384, 94 S.E.2d 755. 'All the facts and circumstances are to be taken into considerati......
  • Newcomb v. Pattillo
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 1969
    ...the exercise of ordinary care under all the circumstances. See Hay v. Carter, 94 Ga.App. 382, 384, 94 S.E.2d 755; Davenport v. Robinson, 109 Ga.App. 753, 755, 137 S.E.2d 380; Attaway v. Morris, 110 Ga.App. 873, 874(5), 140 S.E.2d 214; Thomason v. Willingham, 118 Ga.App. 821, 165 S.E.2d 865.......
  • Pike v. Stafford, 41210
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 12, 1965
    ...the conduct of other drivers, must be taken into account.' Flanigan v. Reville, 107 Ga.App. 382, 130 S.E.2d 258; Davenport v. Robinson, 109 Ga.App. 753, 755, 137 S.E.2d 814. The evidence of the parties' actions in this case, however, shows negligence on the part of the defendant without con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT