Hall v. Slaton, (No. 18465.)

Decision Date24 August 1929
Docket Number(No. 18465.)
Citation149 S.E. 306,40 Ga.App. 288
PartiesHALL. v. SLATON.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

ation 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 by the Court.

STEPHENS, J. [1] 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 plaintiffs 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; Forcpaugh 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 plaintiff's intestate met his death as a result of the gross negligence and wanton conduct of the defendant in operating the automobile in which the plaintiff's intestate was riding as the defendant's guest, the evidence was sufficient to authorize a recovery for the plaintiff, under the rulings of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Moeller v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1944
    ...and the braking apparatus. We believe this went to the probative value of his testimony rather than to its competency. In Hall v. Slaton, 40 Ga.App. 288, 149 S.E. 306, a witness was permitted to give an opinion as to the speed of an automobile which collided with a wooden bridge, his opinio......
  • Hall v. Slaton
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 1929
    ...149 S.E. 306 40 Ga.App. 288 HALL v. SLATON. No. 18465.Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second DivisionAugust 24, 1929 ...           ... Syllabus by Editorial staff ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT