Hillhouse v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 41343,No. 2,41343,2 |
| Parties | D. T. HILLHOUSE v. C. W. MATTHEWS CONTRACTING COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
On general demurrer a petition must be construed in the light of its omissions as well as its averments.
(a) Where a petition alleges that the right side of the plaintiff's automobile was struck by an oncoming vehicle while the plaintiff was making a left turn, but fails to allege that the plaintiff waited until there was no oncoming traffic so near as to constitute an immediate hazard, and where there are no allegations as to why such oncoming vehicle was not observable to the plaintiff before he began making such left turn, the petition must be construed as alleging that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety by turning in front of the oncoming vehicle which was so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.
D. T. Hillhouse sued C. W. Matthews Contracting Company to recover for injuries and damages sustained when the plaintiff's automobile was struck by a truck owned by the defendant and being operated by its agent. The petition as finally amended alleged that the plaintiff was making a left turn from State Highway 5 into Blackwell Road in Cobb County, Georgia when the defendant's truck (while traveling in the opposite direction), struck the right rear side panel of the plaintiff's automobile. The plaintiff alleged that he gave a left turn signal and began turning to the left after observing that the intersection was free from oncoming traffic, that he did not observe the defendant's truck until he was making his left turn and until he had reached the southeast corner of the intersection (he had been traveling in a southerly direction and was turning so as to travel in an easterly direction), that due to the close proximity of the vehicles he was unable to avoid the collision, that at the time of the collision the defendant's truck was being operated at an excessive rate of speed which was greater than was reasonable and safe under the conditions and having due regard to the actual hazards then existing, that such truck was being operated without keeping a proper lookout ahead, that the defendant failed to yield the right of way to the plaintiff who had pre-entered the intersection in violation of Code Ann. § 68-1651, and that the defendant's vehicle was not under immediate control. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrers to the plaintiff's petition as amended and dismissed the petition. It is to such adverse judgment that the plaintiff now excepts.
Johnson & Johnson, Jean E. Johnson, Jr., Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
R. M. Reed, Marietta, for defendant in error.
Reserve Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 107 Ga.App. 311, 313, 130 S.E.2d 236, 238. And if an inference unfavorable to the right of the party claiming a right under such pleadings may be fairly drawn from the facts stated therein, such inference will prevail...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. Hill, 42881
...raised in motion for new trial' are without merit and are denied. 2. While this case is similar to Hillhouse v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co., 112 Ga.App. 73, 143 S.E.2d 686, and the petition presents a very close question of whether plaintiff's decedent exercised ordinary care for his own......
-
Yandle v. Alexander
...the clearance of traffic that would constitute an immediate hazard before entering an intersection, Hillhouse v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co., 112 Ga.App. 73, 143 S.E.2d 686; Sandefur v. Miller, 114 Ga.App. 279, 151 S.E.2d 169, and relative to the matter of making new parties to a suit at......
-
Chester v. Evans
...without permission; on the contrary, it can be fairly inferred from the allegations of the petition (Hillhouse v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co., 112 Ga.App. 73, 74, 143 S.E.2d 686) that the child over a period of time, and after having frequent requests to drive the car refused, was obedie......
-
Sandefur v. Miller, s. 42152
...plaintiffs alleged in accordance with the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-1651 and the decision of this court in Hillhouse v. C. W. Matthews &c. Co., 112 Ga.App. 73, 143 S.E.2d 686, that the defendant's vehicle was not in the intersection or so near thereto as to constitute an immediate hazard......