James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
| Decision Date | 03 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 52990,52990,1 |
| Citation | 140 Ga.App. 859,232 S.E.2d 274 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Mrs. Douglas JAMES v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY |
Greene, Buckley, DeRieux & Jones, James A. Eichelberger, Gregory J. Digel, Norma A. Bergman, Atlanta, for appellant.
Long Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Ben L. Weinberg, Jr., Michael T. Bennett, Atlanta, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from a directed verdict for the defendant in a negligence case.
"It is well-settled law that questions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause, and the exercise of ordinary care for one's protection ordinarily are to be decided by a jury, and a court should not decide them . . . except in plain and indisputable cases.' (Cits.)' Savannah Ice Delivery Co. v. Ayers, 127 Ga.App. 560, 561(1), 194 S.E.2d 330, 331 (1972). 'Even where there is no dispute as to the facts, it is, however, usually for the jury to say whether the conduct in question met the standard of the reasonable man.' Wakefield v. A. R. Winter Co., 121 Ga.App. 259, 260, 174 S.E.2d 178, 179 (1970). The plaintiff's undisputed evidence established the prima facie elements of her claim and raised genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by the jury.
The trial court relied on the case of Tolar Construction Co. v. Ellington, 137 Ga.App. 847, 225 S.E.2d 66 (1976). This case was reversed by the Supreme Court, however (Ellington v. Tolar Construction Co., 237 Ga. 235, 227 S.E.2d 336 (1976)), resulting in its merely upholding the principles hereinabove stated. Similarly, the case of Simmons v. Classic City Beverages, Inc., 136 Ga.App. 150, 220 S.E.2d 734 (1975) is distinguishable on its facts.
The direction of the verdict for the defendant is reversed.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkinson v. Kirchoff Enterprises, Inc.
...risk are not to be decided by the court as a matter of law except in plain and indisputable cases. See, e.g., James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 140 Ga.App. 859, 232 S.E.2d 274 (1976). The evidence of record in the present case does not establish indisputably that the appellant's knowledge of t......
-
Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. v. Lewis
...decided by a jury, and a court should not decide them . . . except in plain and indisputable cases. " (Cits.)' " James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 140 Ga.App. 859, 232 S.E.2d 274; Johnson v. John Deere Plow Co., 214 Ga. 645, 648, 106 S.E.2d 901, supra. Under Chatmon and Munford, supra, we find......
-
Cunningham v. National Service Industries, Inc., 69923
...facts, it is usually for the jury to say whether the conduct in question met the standard of the reasonable man. James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 140 Ga.App. 859, 232 S.E.2d 274. " 'Unless no other conclusion is permissible, questions of negligence are matters for jury resolution and are not ......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Chandler
...negligence, proximate cause, and the exercise of ordinary care for one's protection are ordinarily for the jury (James v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 140 Ga.App. 859, 232 S.E.2d 274) and are usually incapable of summary adjudication and should be resolved by trial. Ellington v. Tolar Const. Co., ......