Herring v. Condit
| Decision Date | 27 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A1356,A95A1356 |
| Citation | 218 Ga.App. 855,463 S.E.2d 532 |
| Parties | HERRING v. CONDIT et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
L.B. Kent, Columbus, for appellant.
Divine, Wilkin, Raulerson & Fields, Richard W. Fields, Albany, Self, Mullins, Robinson, Marchetti & Kamensky, Ronald W. Self, Columbus, Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, William B. Hardegree, Columbus, and Virgil T. Theus, Columbus, for appellees.
On the morning of August 13, 1992, Jimmy Lee Steed lost control of his car while driving in heavy rain on a three-lane highway, I-185 near Columbus, Georgia. After spinning, Steed's vehicle came to rest in the center lane, causing a multi-car pileup (in the center lane) which included vehicles driven by Joey Dee Owens, Earl F. Maddox, Stanley M. Condit and William Casaday. A Mercedes automobile stopped in the far left lane of the highway about 40 or 50 yards behind this bottleneck and Janie Herring stopped her vehicle behind the Mercedes. Two or three minutes later, Patrick Dunning drove his car into the rear of Herring's vehicle, propelling it into the Mercedes. Plaintiff Herring brought suit against defendants Dunning, Steed, Owens, Maddox, Condit and Casaday, alleging that their negligence was the proximate cause of injuries she sustained in the collision. Herring settled with Dunning, a matter which is the subject of Herring v. Dunning, 213 Ga.App. 695, 446 S.E.2d 199, and filed this appeal after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Steed, Owens, Maddox, Condit and Casaday. Held:
In Tucker v. Star Laundry, etc., 100 Ga.App. 175, 110 S.E.2d 416, Pauline Tucker was forced to stop in the roadway when the truck she was following suddenly and unexpectedly (without signal) stopped in reaction to other vehicular traffic. Tucker and her mother, a passenger, were allegedly injured when a car struck the Tucker vehicle from behind. The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaints and this Court affirmed, holding that the truck driver's alleged negligence "was too remote to constitute a concurring proximate cause of the injuries." Id. at 177(1), 110 S.E.2d 416. The controlling factor was that Pauline Tucker had time to affirmatively avoid the "complete and static" hazard allegedly precipitated by the truck driver. This Court explained that "[o]ne of the principal proximate causes of the injuries alleged was the negligence of [the driver, who approached Tucker from the rear,] in not having his automobile under control and stopping it in the exercise of ordinary care upon signal by the driver of the Tucker car." Id. The circumstances in the case sub judice are no different. In fact, the bottleneck that was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- NEC Technologies, Inc. v. Nelson
-
Harrison v. Jenkins
...negligence would create an extremely hazardous condition on the bridge and could result in subsequent collisions. Jenkins relies on Herring v. Condit14 and Tucker v. Star Laundry &c.15 for the conclusion that in this case there is no "essential causal link" between Jenkins' alleged negligen......
-
Smith v. Commercial Transp., Inc., s. A95A2057
...from a grant of summary judgment for defendants, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs.2 Herring v. Condit, 218 Ga.App. 855, 463 S.E.2d 532 (1995) is distinguishable, as the initial accident was not blocking the road and other drivers stopped (thereby causing the ......
-
Commercial Law - Robert A. Weber, Jr.
...198 Ga. App. 313, 315, 401 S.E.2d 328, 331 (1991); Fiat Auto USA v. Hollums, 185 Ga. App. 113, 114, 363 S.E.2d 312, 314 (1987). 69. 218 Ga. App. at 855, 463 S.E.2d at 906. 70. Id. at 852, 463 S.E.2d at 904. 71. 213 Ga. App. 758, 445 S.E.2d 856 (1994). 72. Id. at 759, 445 S.E.2d at 857. 73. ......