Epps v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 September 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 37288,37288,2 |
| Citation | 98 Ga.App. 252,105 S.E.2d 361 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | J. G. EPPS v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY et al |
R. Howard Gordon, Danielsville, Rupert A. Brown, Athens, for plaintiff in error.
Erwin, Nix, Birchmore & Epting, Nikolas P. Chivilis, Athens, for defendant in error. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. While on general demurrer, a petition must be construed most strongly against the pleader and if any inferences unfavorable to the rights of the plaintiff may be fairly drawn therefrom, the general demurrer will be sustained, this rule ought not to be applied so as to reach a strained or unnatural construction of the words used and the facts alleged. Toler v. Goodin, 200 Ga. 527, 535, 37 S.E.2d 609. Neither should this rule be so applied as to circumvent or override the broader and more salutary rule that questions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence and of proximate cause of the injury, are ordinarily questions for the jury which the courts will decline to solve on demurrer except in plain, palpable and indisputable cases. Parker v. Johnson, 97 Ga.App. 261, 102 S.E.2d 917. Under the foregoing rules of law, where certain conduct is alleged to be negligent and where it is alleged that such conduct was the proximate cause of the injury complained of, it is a jury question as to whether such conduct constitutes negligence and whether it was the proximate cause of the injury if reasonable minds might differ upon the question. Georgia Power Co. v. Blum, 80 Ga.App. 618(2a), 57 S.E.2d 18.
2. Accordingly, where the petition in the instant case alleged that the petitioner's car and the defendant's truck were traveling in the same direction on a stated highway and that the driver of the truck gave what is known as a left-hand signal by extending his left arm horizontally from the vehicle and then proceeded to make a right turn, that petitioner's daughter, who was driving his car, relying upon the hand signal so given, attempted to pass the truck on the right-hand side and collided on the right-hand edge of the paved portion of the highway with the right rear fender of the defendant's truck, causing certain damage to the front of the plaintiff's automobile, and further alleged that the defendant driver was negligent in giving a left-turn signal and in thereafter instead of turning to the left, turning to the right, and that this negligence was the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dowis v. McCurdy, s. 40283
...omitted) in a manner making it negligence and whether it was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. Epps v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 Ga.App. 252(1), 105 S.E.2d 361. Here the court charged that proof of any of the allegations of negligence 'would be sufficient insofar as the......
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 39915
...13(1), 121 S.E.2d 46. To the same effect, see Williams v. Porter, 202 Ga. 113, 118, 42 S.E.2d 475; Epps v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 98 Ga.App. 252(1), 105 S.E.2d 361; G. & R. Waterproofing Co. v. Brogdon, 104 Ga.App. 112, 114, 121 S.E.2d 77; Burke v. Life Ins. Co. of Ga., 10......
-
Mullis v. Chaika, s. 43324-43325
...the proximate cause of the injury. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Wingate, 84 Ga.App. 750, 67 S.E.2d 250; Epps v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 98 Ga.App. 252(1), 105 S.E.2d 361. Following the principles of the above cited authorities, it is apparent that the trial judge did not err ......
-
Higdon Grocery Co. v. Faircloth
...what the plaintiff's husband might have done in this emergency situation to avoid collision was for the jury. Epps v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 98 Ga.App. 252, 105 S.E.2d 361. 'A person has a right to choose even a dangerous course, if that course seems the safest one under the circums......