Faust v. Buchanan
| Citation | 179 S.E.2d 294,123 Ga.App. 15 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 45760,45760,2 |
| Parties | Madison FAUST v. Joseph C. BUCHANAN, Administrator |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Beauchamp, Engram & Greenholtz, B. Sam Engram, Jr., Albany, for appellant.
Smith & Hargrove, William E. Smith, Americus, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Madison Faust brought suit against Joseph C. Buchanan as the administrator of the estate of B. P. Buchanan to recover damages for injury to his motorized mechancial cotton picker which occurred when the deceased drove his automobile into the rear of the picker while it was being moved on the highway by plaintiff's servant, and defendant counterclaimed for the funeral expenses and damage to the automobile of the deceased. Plaintiff's evidence indicated from Pine Mountain to his farm in Terrell from Pine Ountain to his farm in Terrell County by a servant who was experienced in operating it, that the collision occurred about 7 p.m. or shortly thereafter at a place on the highway which was for at least a mile straight and level, that it was on the right side of the road, traveling at about 11 miles per hour and had all lights on-which included two headlights on the front, two red lights which either flashed or remained red, and one white light on the rear, and that these were visible for a distance of a quarter to half a mile. Plaintiff was out in his pick-up truck looking for the picker, seeking to ascertain whether the driver wished to take it on to the farm or to park it at an appropriate place and go home for the night. He came upon it within a very few minutes after the collision, and was the first person on the scene. He found the driver lying in the road, unconscious and with a broken arm. The Buchanan car had hit the picker squarely in the rear, severely damaging it, and had then gone off into the ditch on the left side of the road. Mr. Buchanan was in the car and apparently dead. His car had been severely damaged also.
Defendant's evidence indicated that the red lights on the rear of the picker were not on, but that the white light was. The trial court refused to direct a verdict against the counterclaim, surmising that the single white light shining from the rear may have confused Mr. Buchanan, leading him to believe that he was meeting a vehicle of some sort with only one light, and that this may have been the cause of the collision.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant on his counterclaim, and for the defendant on the main action, and plaintiff appeals, urging that the verdict is without evidence to support it and that the court erred in denying a request to charge on following too closely. Held:
1. While the verdict may have been strongly against the weight of the evidence, and the trial court might have granted a new trial on that ground, this court must, on appeal, construe the evidence in support of the verdict, Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Bailey, 112 Ga.App. 684, 690, 146 S.E.2d 324; Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga.App. 668, 682, 16 S.E.2d 214, and if there is any evidence to support the verdict an affirmance results. Middleton v. Waters, 205 Ga. 847(5), 55 S.E.2d 359.
A motorized cotton picker is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Code Ann. § 68-1502(1)(a) which is required, under § 68-1705, to have 'at least one tail lamp mounted on the rear, which when lighted as hereinbefore required shall emit a red light plainly visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear * * *' and we can not say that there is not some evidence upon which the jury could find that although there were tail lamps on plaintiff's picker which, if lighted, would have emitted red lights that would have complied with the law, these were not lighted at the time of the collision, and that the only tail lamp that was lighted emitted a white light, and that this may have caused the collision to occur. Cf. Whatley v. Henry, 65 Ga.App. 668(2), 16 S.E.2d 214, supra.
2. A careful reading of the transcript does not indicate that there was any evidence indicating that the deceased was closely 'following' the cotton picker, and hence denial of the request to charge the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-1641 on that matter was not error. Ellison v. Robinson, 96 Ga.App. 882(5), 101 S.E.2d 902.
Judgment affirmed.
Appellant urges that the motorized cotton picker, used exclusively for picking cotton, is an 'implement of husbandry,' and that in holding it to be a 'motor vehicle' subject to the requirement of Code Ann. § 68-1705 when operated on the highway at night in that it must have in operation at least one tail lamp emitting a red light visible for a distance of 500 feet to the rear, we have overlooked the specific exemption from this requirement of 'implements of husbandry' by Code Ann. § 68-1701(c).
This raises the issue of whether, for the purposes of the exemption in § 68-1701(c), a motorized cotton picker equipped with an electrical system, having lights, both front and rear, and with pneumatic tires...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sumter County v. Pritchett, 46465
...and should be given a narrow construction. Dalton Brick & Tile Co. v. Huiet, 102 Ga.App. 221, 224, 115 S.E.2d 748.' Faust v. Buchanan, 123 Ga.App. 15, 18, 179 S.E.2d 294, 297. The exceptions are not to be extended beyond their explicit terms. Indeed, the statute provides at the end thereof ......
-
SAWNEE EMC v. PUBLIC SERV. COM'N
...should be resolved in favor of the general statutory rule, rather than in favor of the exemption. Id. See also Faust v. Buchanan, 123 Ga.App. 15, 18, 179 S.E.2d 294 (1970). In a statement of legislative intent, the General Assembly declared as its purpose in enacting the territorial (1) to ......