Engle v. Finch
| Decision Date | 17 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 17126.) |
| Citation | 140 S.E. 632,37 Ga.App. 389 |
| Parties | ENGLE. v. FINCH. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action between T. B. Engle and P. C. Finch. Judgment for Finch, and Engle brings error. Judgment reversed, conforming to answer to certified questions in 165 Ga. ——, 139 S. E. 868.
Branch & Howard, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Alston, Alston, Foster & Moise, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
STEPHENS, J. [1] 1. As held by the Supreme Court in answer to a certified question in this case (165 Ga. —, 139 S. E. 868) "a wife, when suing for the homicide of her husband, under section 4425 of the Civil Code 1910, cannot recover, in addition to a sum representing the full value of the husband's life, a sum for punitive and exemplary damages, as provided in section 4503 of the Civil Code 1910, although the evidence authorizes an inference that the homicide of the husband was proximately caused by the willful or wanton act of the defendant." In a suit by the wife to recover for the homicide of her husband, where the evidence authorized the inference that the husband was killed as a result of the willful and wanton conduct of the defendant, it was error for the trial judge to charge that, if the jury believed that the conduct of the defendant in causing the injury which resulted in the husband's death was gross negligence or willful, reckless, or wanton, the jury would be authorized to add to the sum ascertained as the value of the life of the husband a sum as exemplary or punitive damages for the purpose of deterring the wrongdoer from repeating the trespass or wrong.
2. In a suit for damages for the homicide of the plaintiff's husband, where it is alleged that the deceased, when traveling as a passenger in an automobile, came to his death as a result of its being wrecked by the negligence of the defendant, who was the driver, in running into two poles on the side of the highway while operating the automobile at a rate of speed in excess of 30 miles an hour, and where the evidence authorizes the inference that the automobile was proceeding along the highway toward a bridge at a rate of speed in excess of 10 miles an hour, and that when it was wrecked it was about 306 feet from the bridge, a charge of the court that, if the defendant was operating the automobile at a rate of speed in excess of 10 miles an hour as he approached a bridge, this would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ewing v. Johnston
...form an estimate of the speed at which the automobile was traveling, although the witness did not see the automobile." Engle v. Finch, 37 Ga.App. 389(4), 140 S.E. 632. In the instant case, this collision occurred in the northbound lane of Highway 124 in Snellville, Georgia. James Edison, a ......
-
Hightower v. Landrum
...511, 77 S.E. 591; Fuller v. Mills, 36 Ga.App. 357, 136 S.E. 807; Southern R. Co. v. Autry, 36 Ga.App. 552, 137 S.E. 414; Engle v. Finch, 37 Ga.App. 389(3), 140 S.E. 632; Jones Merc. Co. v. Copeland, 54 Ga.App. 647, 188 S.E. 586; Goldstein v. Gee, 76 Ga.App. 637(2), 46 S.E.2d 763; Pitts v. F......
-
Clack v. Hasnat
...know that it was going well over 35 miles per hour," where his opinion was based on his knowledge of driving cars); Engle v. Finch , 37 Ga. App. 389, 390, 140 S.E. 632 (1927) ("[T]he witness may, from hearing the noise which the automobile made while in motion and from hearing the impact wh......
- Engle v. Finch