Fraser v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 12 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 20161.,20161. |
| Citation | 156 S.E. 268,42 Ga.App. 329 |
| Parties | FRASER. v. HUNTER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
A person operating an automobile along a public highway in the daytime, who is injured by running into automobile parked in the highway, which he does not see, is guilty of negligence proximately causing the injury, where the parked automobile is not obscured from his view and comes within his range of vision in time for him to avoid the injury. Ordinary care on the part of the person operating the automobile requires him, under the circumstances, to see the parked automobile in time to avoid the injury.
Error from City Court of Atlanta; Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.
Action by Mrs. E. J. Fraser against W. J. Hunter. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed. Conforming to answers to certified questions in 155 S. E. 753.
Poole & Fraser, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
McDaniel, Neely & Marshall and Harry L. Greene, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The petition, reduced to its substantial averments, alleges that the plaintiff, while operating an automobile along a street at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of March 12, 1929, collided with an automobile truck of the defendant which had been negligently parked by the defendant in the middle of the street, at a place where the street was thirty-three feet in width, that the plaintiff did not see the defendant's truck until it was too late to avoid the collision, and that as a result of the alleged negligence of the defendant in so parking his truck the plaintiff received certain described injuries. While it is alleged that at the time of the collision the place in the street where the defendant's truck was parked was wet and slick, and that this condition of the street was known to the defend ant, it is nowhere alleged that this condition of the street caused the plaintiff's automobile to skid or to get beyond control, or in any manner contributed to the collision and the consequent injuries to the plaintiff.
The transaction complained of occurred, as alleged, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, which was in the daytime. It does not appear that the truck, after it had been parked in the street, was in any manner obscured from the vision of the plaintiff or of any one approaching along the street in another automobile. Construing the petition, as must be done, most strongly against the plaintiff, it must be taken as alleging that the truck was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Erck v. Zelios, 16667
...Ry. et al., 14 Cal.App.2d 673, 58 P.2d 928; Forster v. Outagamie Equity Co-Op. Exchange, 197 Wis. 63, 221 N.W. 376; Fraser v. Hunter, 42 Ga.App. 329, 156 S.E. 268; Notarianni v. Ross, 384 Pa. 63, 119 A.2d 792; Reid v. Southern Ry. Co., 52 Ga.App. 508, 183 S.E. 849. Negligence as a matter of......
-
Smith v. Hodges
...of law." Rosenhoff v. Schaul, 42 Ga. App. 776, 780, 157 S. E. 215, 217; Pitcher v. Curtis (Ga. App.) 159 S. E. 783; Eraser v. Hunter. 42 Ga. App. 329, 156 S. E. 268; Jones v. City of Macon, 36 Ga. App. 97, 135 S. E. 517. The petition set forth a cause of action, and the court erred in susta......
-
Smith v. Hodges
...a matter of law." Rosenhoff v. Schaul, 42 Ga.App. 776, 780, 157 S.E. 215, 217; Pitcher v. Curtis (Ga.App.) 159 S.E. 783; Fraser v. Hunter, 42 Ga.App. 329, 156 S.E. 268; Jones v. City of Macon, 36 Ga.App. 97, 135 S.E. The petition set forth a cause of action, and the court erred in sustainin......
-
Southern Stages v. Clements
...circumstances, to see the parked automobile in time to avoid the injury." The plaintiff quotes further from the body of the opinion in the Fraser case, but we will not further quote from it. It our view that the facts in that case differentiate it from the instant case. Our attention is als......