DuFour v. Martin
| Decision Date | 30 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 43384,43384,2 |
| Citation | 159 S.E.2d 450,117 Ga.App. 160 |
| Parties | Steven DuFOUR, by Next Friend v. Imogene MARTIN et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Albert E. Butler, Jesup, for appellant.
Thomas & Howard, Joseph H. Thomas, Hubert Howard, Jesup, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon a verdict of the jury in favor of the defendants.
1. The plaintiff argues that, since the defendants' answer alleged in defense that the plaintiff was barred from recovery because he rode his bicycle into the defendants' automobile while wearing a mask which impaired his vision, in disregard for his own safety, and the defendants did not affirmatively allege that the defendant driver slowed down and kept a vigilant lookout as she approached the place where the collision occurred, the defense was subject to general demurrer The cases relied on by the plaintiff do not support this contention. The defendants' answer denied the plaintiff's allegations of negligence, including failure to slow down and to keep a proper lookout for persons who might be expected to cross the street. Generally a party in a negligence action is not required to allege his own exercise of care. Great Cosmopolitan Shows v. Petty, 7 Ga.App. 236, 237, 66 S.E. 624; Parker v. Johnson, 97 Ga.App. 261, 262, 102 S.E.2d 917. The trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff's general demurrer to the defendants' answer.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict for the defendants. Questions of negligence of the defendant and negligence of the plaintiff that might prohibit or reduce the amount of plaintiff's recovery of damages were matters within the province of the jury. Phillips v. Blanton, 116 Ga.App. 743, 159 S.E.2d 187; Chambliss v. Felder, 116 Ga.App. 80, 156 S.E.2d 518. The trial court did not err in overruling the plaintiff's motions for directed verdict, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and for a new trial.
3. The trial court did not err as contended by the plaintiff in instructions given to the jury and failure to give requests to charge, since the plaintiff did not before the verdict make objections distinctly stating the grounds of his objections. Appellate Practice Act of 1965, Ga.L. 1965, Pp. 18, 31 (Code Ann. § 70-207); Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga.App. 642 149 S.E.2d 393; United States Security Warehouse, Inc. v. Tasty Sandwich Co., 115 Ga.App. 764, 156 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. Barnes, 47882
...revised our appellate and post-trial procedure. Illustrative are Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga.App. 630, 149 S.E.2d 383; DuFour v. Martin, 117 Ga.App. 160(3), 159 S.E.2d 450; Seagraves v. ABCO Manufacturing Co., 121 Ga.App. 224, 173 S.E.2d 416; Fleet Transport Company v. Cooper, 126 Ga.App. 360,......
-
Royal Frozen Foods Co. v. Garrett
...bring into focus the precise nature of the alleged error so that it can be reasonably understood by the trial court. Dufour v. Martin, 117 Ga.App. 160(3), 159 S.E.2d 450; Georgia Power Co. v. Maddox, 113 Ga.App. 642, 149 S.E.2d 393; Jones v. State, 113 Ga.App. 667, 668, 149 S.E.2d 426. In o......
-
Roberson v. Hart
...the same rule governing objections to the failure to charge or objections to the charges as given (see in this regard, DuFour v. Martin, 117 Ga.App. 160(3), 159 S.E.2d 450; and McChargue v. Black Grading Contractors, Inc., 122 Ga.App. 1(10), 176 S.E.2d 212), the Supreme Court has held other......
- Cloud v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.