Folds v. City Council Of Augusta

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: JENKINS
• Citation: Folds v. City Council Of Augusta, 151 S.E. 685, 40 Ga.App. 827 (Ga. App. 1930)
• Decision Date: 23 January 1930
• Docket Number: (No. 19672.)
• Parties: FOLDS et al. v. CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA, for Use, etc.

40 Ga.App. 827

151 S.E. 685

FOLDS et al.

v.CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA, for Use, etc.

(No. 19672.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Jan. 23, 1930.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 12, 1930.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Richmond County; A. L. Franklin, Judge.

Action by the City Council of Augusta, for the use of one Griffin, against J. R. Folds and others. Judgment for plaintiff, defendants' motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

W. Inman Curry, of Augusta, for plaintiffs in error.

Peebles & Bowden, of Augusta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

JENKINS, P. J. The instant suit was brought in the name of the city council of Augusta, for the use of Griffin, on a bond executed by Folds as principal and another as surety, to the city council of Augusta, reciting the issuance by the city council to Folds of a license to "run or work a dray, cart, wagon, or auto-truck, " and conditioned upon the principal and surety named making "good all damages to persons or property that may happen through the carelessness or other improper conduct of the driver of such vehicle, " and conforming "to all rules and regulations of the City Council respecting drays, carts, wagons and auto-trucks, in the manner pointed out and required by the ordinances of the city." It was alleged that Griffin, while walking on the sidewalk and street, was struck and injured by reason of negligence on the part of Folds and the driver of the licensed vehicle, and that at the time of the injury the vehicle was being operated in violation of a city ordinance, as set out in the declaration. There was no demurrer to the petition. On the trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $400, and the defendants except to the order overruling their motion for a new trial. Held:

1. Carelessness and negligence are synonymous terms. Southern Ry. Co. v. Horine, 121 Ga. 386, 49 S. E. 285. The condition of the bond sued on, which rendered the defendants liable for damages on account of "carelessness or other improper conduct" in the operation of the licensed vehicle, reasonably construed, covered injuries resulting from negligence in such operation. Accordingly, the charge of the court that the plaintiff alleged certain damages which he contended occurred by reason of the negligence of the defendant, that the suit was based upon such alleged acts of negligence, and, if the plaintiff recovered at all, it must be upon the acts of negligence alleged and proven, was not erroneous, for the reason that the condition of the bond did not cover injuries resulting from negligence. Nor was such charge calculated to confuse the jury or mislead them.

2. In view of the evidence for the plaintiff as to the speed at which the vehiclestruck...