Hopkins v. Sicro
| Decision Date | 30 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 40063,40063,1 |
| Citation | 107 Ga.App. 691,131 S.E.2d 243 |
| Parties | A. C. HOPKINS v. Mrs. Shirley SICRO |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The petition stated a cause of action, therefore it was not error to overrule the motion to dismiss.
2. There being some evidence to support the judgment, the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motion for new trial.
Mrs. Shirley Sicro brought suit against A. C. Hopkins and Jack Williams for damages to her automobile caused by the alleged negligence of the defendants. The petition alleged substantially that on December 20, 1959, at about 12:30 a.m., the plaintiff was driving her 1957 Chevrolet automobile in a northerly direction on North Highland Avenue at its intersection with Los Angeles Avenue; that North Highland Avenue is a 21 foot wide paved street divided into two traffic lanes by a painted center stripe; that after driving about 20 to 25 feet from the intersection at a speed of 10 to 15 miles per hour, the plaintiff observed a truck, owned by defendant Hopkins and driven by defendant Williams in the scope of his employment by Hopkins, proceeding in a southerly direction on North Highland Avenue and transporting a small house which protruded about 4 feet into the plaintiff's lane; that although there were lights on the tractor, there were none on the portion of the house which extended across the center line of the street; that the protruding portion of the house, traveling at a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour, struck the plaintiff's automobile, which was completely within the northbound lane, dragging it into a parked automobile in the northbound lane; that the fair market value of the plaintiff's automobile before the collision was $1,500 and afterwards was $600; that the negligence of the defendants was the sole and proximate cause of the collision and consisted of: violation of Code Ann. § 68-1633 (); violation of Code Ann. § 68-1634 (); violation of Code Ann. § 68-1637(b)(2) (); violation of Code Ann. § 68-1640 (); failure to exercise ordinary care in the operation of a vehicle by driving it on a public street, at night, with a moving projection on the left side of the roadway, occupying more than one-half of the maintraveled portion of the roadway. Defendant Hopkins filed an answer alleging that the plaintiff's damages were due to her own negligence or that of her husband, which exceeded any negligence of the defendant. By amendment the answer alleged that the defendant was authorized on January 29, 1959 to move the house and was at all times operating within the law and in conformity will all applicable state laws, regulations and city ordinances. A copy of the authorization from the Truck Weighting & Permit Division of the State Highway Department of Georgia for the transporting of the house was attached as an exhibit to the answer. At the beginning of the trial defendant Hopkins moved to dismiss the petition, which motion was overruled by the court without hearing argument thereon. The case was tried before the judge without the intervention of a jury, and a judgment of $800 was rendered in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants. Defendant Hopkins filed a motion for a new trial on the usual three general grounds, which motion the court overruled. Defendant Hopkins excepts to the judgments of the court in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bentley v. State, 48573
...instant case, 'the conflicts in the evidence were questions for the trier of fact and not one of law for this court.' Hopkins v. Sicro, 107 Ga.App. 691, 693, 131 S.E.2d 243.' Stewart v. State, 128 Ga.App. 11, 13, 195 S.E.2d 251, 252. This case comes 'under the general rule that when evidenc......
-
Double View Ventures, LLC v. Polite
...will not disturb the trial court's refusal to grant new trial if there is any evidence to support the judgment.” Hopkins v. Sicro, 107 Ga.App. 691, 693(2), 131 S.E.2d 243 (1963). However, if a defendant raises a claim under OCGA §§ 5–5–20 and 5–5–21 in his motion for new trial, the law impo......
-
Cornog v. State, 48295
...disturb the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial if there is any evidence to support the judgment. (Cits.).' Hopkins v. Sicro, 107 Ga.App. 691, 693, 131 S.E.2d 243, 245. Here defendant contends the shooting was accidental, that in attempting to get the gun away from the victim, it dis......
-
Associated Software Consultants Organization, Inc. v. Wysocki
...there is "any evidence" to authorize it. Kendrick v. Kendrick, 218 Ga. 460(1), 128 S.E.2d 496 (1962); see also Hopkins v. Sicro, 107 Ga.App. 691, 693(2), 131 S.E.2d 243 (1963). Here, "[i]t was for jury determination as to whether or not there was a bona fide controversy so as to deny attorn......