Hall v. Slaton
| Decision Date | 24 August 1929 |
| Docket Number | 18465. |
| Citation | 149 S.E. 306,40 Ga.App. 288 |
| Parties | HALL v. SLATON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial staff.
The nonstatutory law of Alabama, as construed and interpreted by courts of that state, cannot be proved as law applicable to tort action arising in that state on trial thereof in this state, but nonstatutory law applicable to case is nonstatutory law of this state as construed and interpreted by courts of this state.
Before a guest of driver of automobile can recover for injuries received as result of operation of automobile, he must show that driver was guilty of gross negligence.
Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; James Maddox, Judge.
Action by A. L. Hall, administrator, against E. B. Slaton. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Conforming to opinion of the Supreme Court in 148 S.E. 741.
Hugh Reed, of Center, Ala., and Porter & Mebane, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Graham Wright and Wright, Wright & Covington, all of Rome, for defendant in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
1. The Supreme Court, having in the case of Slaton v. Hall, 168 Ga. 710, 148 S.E. 741, reversed the judgment of this court in that case (38 Ga.App. 619, 144 S.E. 827), in so far as it was based upon paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 of the decision and held that the nonstatutory law of Alabama, as construed and interpreted by the courts of that state, cannot be proved as the law applicable to a tort action arising in that state upon a trial of a suit upon this cause of action in the courts of this state, but that the nonstatutory law applicable to the case as applied in the forum of this state is the nonstatutory law of this state as construed and interpreted by the courts of this state, the trial court did not err in striking, on demurrer, the paragraphs of the plaintiff's petition in which the plaintiff pleaded the nonstatutory law of the state of Alabama as construed by the courts of that state. Therefore paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 of the decision of this court in Hall v. Slaton, 38 Ga.App 619, 144 S.E. 827, supra, in so far as they conflict with this ruling of the Supreme Court, are revoked and overruled. See in this connection, Restatement of Conflict of Laws by the American Law Institute (1929) § § 653-657; Forepaugh v. Del., etc., R. Co., 128 Pa. 217, 18 A. 503, 5 L.R.A. 508, 15 Am.St.Rep. 672.
2. The plaintiff's petition having alleged, and the evidence adduced upon the trial, as narrated in paragraph 6 of the former decision in this case, being sufficient to authorize the inference that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial