Griner v. Tuten, 42196
| Decision Date | 23 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 42196,No. 3,42196,3 |
| Citation | 114 Ga.App. 484,151 S.E.2d 835 |
| Parties | A. G. GRINER v. Peggy G. TUTEN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The plaintiff having established a prima facie case of negligence per se and proximate cause on the part of the defendant, the burden of proof was on the defendant to show that the act complained of was not done in violation of the applicable statute because it was unintentional and not the result of any failure to exercise ordinary care on his part.
This was a suit by the plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision which, according to the allegations of the petition, occurred as follows: 'About 7:00 o'clock in the evening of October 26, 1963, your petitioner was riding as a passenger in the front seat of a 1962 Oldsmobile being driven by Cecil M. Tuten in a westerly direction in the outside or northernmost of the westbound traffic lanes of U.S. Highway 80, and at the same time a Chevrolet panel truck owned and being driven by the defendant proceeded eastwardly in the outside or southernmost lane for eastbound traffic, and while the Oldsmobile was proceeding westwardly up the incline of the viaduct the truck of defendant came over the crest of the viaduct traveling in the opposite direction; and when the meeting vehicles were approximately fifty feet apart defendant drove his truck to its left into and across his inside or northernmost eastbound traffic lane and then continued across the center line of the four-laned highway and into the vehicle in which petitioner was riding and which was traveling westwardly in its proper lane,-and your petitioner was injured in the collision.' The petition charged among other grounds that the defendant was negligent in 'Failing to drive his panel truck within a single lane for traffic, in violation of Section 68-1640(a) of the Code of Georgia,-which violation of law constituted negligence per se,' and in 'Driving his panel truck to his left and across the center line of the highway and into the path of and into, the automobile in which petitioner was riding and which was being driven lawfully in the opposite direction on the road.'
The defendant in his answer denied the acts of negligence charged against him and alleged that the occurrence complained of was caused by the act of a third party in striking the rear of his vehicle and forcing him into the opposite lane of traffic. In an amendment to his answer, the defendant further alleged that the occurrence was, as to the defendant, an accident in the legal sense, the defendant not being guilty of any negligence.
The case proceeded to trial on the issues thus made and upon the jury being unable to reach a verdict a mistrial was declared. The defendant then moved for a judgment in his favor notwithstanding the mistrial in accordance with his previous motion for a directed verdict; and from the denial of the same, he appealed to this court.
Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Luhr G. C. Beckmann,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. McAfee, 57970
...failure to exercise ordinary care on his part." Cruse v. Taylor, 89 Ga.App. 611(1b), 80 S.E.2d 704 (1954). Accord, Griner v. Tuten, 114 Ga.App. 484, 151 S.E.2d 835 (1966). It was admitted by defendant bus driver that the malfunction of the brakes caused the collision, and defendants "thus a......
- DeMayo v. Walton