Hancock County v. Clark, s. 22496, 22497.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1933
• Docket Number: Nos. 22496, 22497.,s. 22496, 22497.
• Citation: 167 S.E. 748,46 Ga.App. 363
• Parties: HANCOCK COUNTY. v. CLARK et al. NEWSOME. v. SAME.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

46 Ga.App. 363

167 S.E. 748

HANCOCK COUNTY.

v.CLARK et al.

NEWSOME.

v.SAME.

Nos. 22496, 22497.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Feb. 8, 1933.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Hancock County; James B. Park, Judge.

Suits by Mrs. Elgin Clark and others against Hancock County and against John Newsome. Judgments for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.

Reversed.

In case No. 22496:G. L. Dickens, of Sparta, for plaintiff in error.

O'Neal & O'Neal, of Savannah, Sam H. Wiley, of Sparta, and Sibley & Allen, of Mil-ledgeville, for defendants in error.

In case No. 22197:Sibley & Allen, of Milledgeville, for plaintiff in error.

O'Neal & O'Neal, of Savannah, and Sam H. Wiley and G. L. Dickens, both of Sparta, for defendants in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, Judge.

1. Where one is operating an automobile along a public road in which there is a bridge ahead which, by reason of a depression in the road, he cannot see, and, from his observation of the road beyond the depression, the road ahead is apparently straight, and where he continues to operate the automobile in a straight direction at. a rapid and! high rate of speed which is accelerated by the incline in the grade of the road, but where, after proceeding further and before reaching the bridge, he ascertains that the road is not on a straight course but deflects therefrom and leads to another bridge located about forty-five feet off the straight course, and where, after discovering this, he attempts to reduce the speed of the automobile by an application of the brakes and to take a deflected course and cross the latter bridge, and the automobile skids in soft earth and hits one of the abutments of the bridge, through which it breaks and falls into the ravine below and injures an occupant in the automobile, and where it does not appear that the depression in the road or the softness of the earthconstitutes a defect in a bridge, the injuries thus sustained are not due to any defect in the bridge. In this case, so far as the depression in the road could in any wise be considered as a contributing factor to the plaintiff's injuries, it was not because the depression constituted a defect in the bridge, but was because it constituted a defect in the road.

2. The petition in a suit by an occupant of the automobile to recover from the county and the operator of the automobile damages for injuries sustained as above indicated, which contained no allegation that the soft...