Harris v. Reid

• Decision Date: 14 April 1923
• Docket Number: (No. 13822.)
• Citation: 117 S.E. 256,30 Ga.App. 187
• Parties: HARRIS v. REID.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

30 Ga.App. 187

117 S.E. 256

HARRIS

v.REID.

(No. 13822.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

April 14, 1923.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of La Grange; Duke Davis, Judge.

Action by Mrs. W. H. Harris against Mrs. Sid Reid. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Plaintiff sued for damages on account of personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained on June 5, 1921, while she was riding in an automobile as a gratuitous invited guest of the defendant. The petition charges that the defendant, while driving her automobile upon the public highway at a rate of speed of "about 35 miles an hour, " overtook and passed another automobile on the right-hand side, and in doing so scraped the fenders of the other car and that "just after" this, and while traveling at the rate of approximately 40 miles an hour, defendant turned her head to look back, and caused her automobile to run off an embankment, thereby inflicting described injuries upon the plaintiff. Negligence is alleged as follows: (1) In operating the automobile at said rate of speed while passing said car on the highway; (2) in passing said other car on the right side; (3) in driving her said automobile so near said car as to scrape its fenders; and (4) in turning and looking back while operating her automobile at said rate of speed, and in thereby causing it to run over said embankment and to turn over. By amendment the original allegation to the effect that the other car was passed on the right side was stricken, and the averment was made that it was passed on the left or correct side, and it was alleged that the remaining acts of negligence complained of in the original petition constituted a gross lack of care.

It appears from the testimony of the plaintiff, the only witness, that at the time of the injury the car was traveling in a straight and smooth country road, and that the act of striking the other car, the admonition uttered by the plaintiff from the rear seat to "look out, " the momentary glance backward by the defendant, and the act of going over what was designated as a slight embankment, followed in practically immediate succession. The plaintiff did not attempt to show whether the defendant's glance backward was due to the scraping of the cars, or to the plaintiff's uttered admonition, or to a combination of these causes. The evidence does not disclose what part of the road the other car occupied, or whether the act of the defendant in striking the other car was due to the manner in which the defendant's car was operated, or whether it might have been attributable to some act of the other driver. The plaintiff testified that, although she looked at the speedometer at a point about 200 or 300 yards from the scene of the accident, and therefore knew the speed at which the defendant's car was traveling, and although the defendant herself commented upon the speed at that time, she (the plaintiff) made no protest and said nothing to the defendant with reference thereto. The allegation in the amendment to the petition, that...