Harris v. Price, 36572
| Decision Date | 12 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 36572,No. 2,36572,2 |
| Citation | 95 Ga.App. 521,98 S.E.2d 118 |
| Parties | T. R. HARRIS et al. v. Fannie PRICE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The court did not err in any of the rulings as to the general or special grounds.
Fannie Price brought suit against T. R. Harris and Mrs. T. R. Harris, in the Superior Court of Haralson County, Georgia, for injuries received while riding in a truck owned by T. R. Harris and being operated, at the time of the occurrence involved, by Mrs. T. R. Harris. The plaintiff alleged: that, while she was riding in the truck driven by Mrs. Harris, she had completed her work for the day and Mrs. Harris was driving the plaintiff home from work at the business of the defendants, who operated a flower shop in Tallapoosa, Georgia; that Taliferro Street is a street running east and west in hat city; that Manning Street is a public street running north and south, intersecting Taliferro Street; that at the time of the occurrence Mrs. Harris was driving in an easterly direction on Taliferro Street and was approaching and entering the intersection of Manning Street; that at the time Mrs. Harris entered the intersection, a car operated by C. E. Hutcheson was proceeding north on Manning Street and had entered said intersection of the two streets; that the Hutcheson car had approached and entered the intersection from the right of the truck operated by Mrs. Harris and was entitled to the right of way at said intersection; that Mrs. Harris was under a duty to yield the right of way at said intersection as she was approaching the said hutcheson's car from its left; that Mrs. Harris recklessly and heedlessly drove the truck into said intersection without observing her duty to yield the right of way to the car operated by Hutcheson and thereby she ran into said car, inflicting grievous wounds and injuries upon the plaintiff. The petition alleged that there was no stop signs or signals at the intersection; that said intersection is highly dangerous for all traffic driving east on Taliferro Street; that, at the time and place Mrs. Harris recklessly and heedlessly drove the truck into the intersection, she failed to reduce the speed of the truck as she approached and entered the intersection. The injuries which the plaintiff received by reason of the collision and the many acts of negligence of Mrs. Harris are set forth. We do not deem it essential to reiterate them here. Her earning capacity and life expectancy are set forth as well as the expenses incurred in treating her injuries. In the first count the plaintiff charged gross negligence. Thereafter, the plaintiff added a second count, relying upon the same state of facts in the main, but charging simple negligence. The jury returned a verdict for $1000 against the defendants on count 2. They filed a motion for a new trial on the statutory grounds and thereafter added 3 special grounds. Several demurrers were filed and objections made by counsel for the defendants during the progress of the trial, but the only assignments of error in the bill of exceptions are to the judgment of the court overruling the general and special grounds.
Claude V. Driver, buchanan, for plaintiff in error.
Murphy & Murphy, Bremen, for defendant in error.
1. We will deal with the general grounds and special ground 1 together. It will be noted that the first count is based on gross negligence and the second count on ordinary care or simple negligence. The court submitted the case to the jury on both counts and instructed them that they could render a verdict on only one of the counts. The jury returned a verdict on count 2. The Court of Appeals held in Nash v. Reed, 8s Ga.App. 473, 478, 59 S.E.2d 259, 260: 'An invited guest in or upon an automobile, to whom the owner or operator thereof owes the duty dof exercising slight care for his safety, is one who is riding in or upon the automobile by invitation of the owner or operator solely for the guest's benefit, and not for the purpose of conferring any benefit upon his host.' Headnote 2 of the same opinion reads: 'An invitee in or upon an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. Fuller
...Bailey v. Murray, 88 Ga.App. 491, 77 S.E.2d 103, and Southern Gas Corp. v. Cowan, 89 Ga.App. 810, 81 S.E.2d 488, and Harris v. Price, 95 Ga.App. 521, 523, 98 S.E.2d 118, in which cases it was held in effect that where an employer furnishes an employee an automobile for the employee's use in......