Jenkins v. Burns, A91A1676
| Decision Date | 15 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. A91A1676,A91A1676 |
| Citation | 202 Ga.App. 579,415 S.E.2d 30 |
| Parties | JENKINS v. BURNS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jones, Byington, Durham & Payne, Frank H. Jones, Rome, for appellant.
Rogers, Magruder, Sumner & Brinson, J. Clinton Sumner, Jr., Rome, for appellee.
Plaintiff Seabron Jenkins sustained injuries in an automobile collision which occurred as he was driving his pickup truck north on East First Street in Rome. Defendant John Milford Burns, Jr., who had stopped his automobile in the left turn lane on the southbound side of the street, made a left turn across plaintiff's path, striking plaintiff's truck. Plaintiff's complaint in negligence against defendant was tried and the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor in the amount of $1,000. Dissatisfied with the award, plaintiff appeals and argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury on comparative negligence.
The evidence showed the collision occurred about 10:30 a.m. on a bright and clear morning. The posted speed limit at the scene of the collision is 35 miles per hour. Plaintiff testified he was driving between 25 and 30 miles an hour and nothing obstructed his vision of the intersection. He did not see defendant's vehicle until just before the impact and applied his brakes, but could not avoid the collision. The investigating officer testified he saw skid marks indicating plaintiff's truck skidded 36 feet before impact. However, he saw no evidence that plaintiff was driving in excess of the speed limit. Defendant testified he did not see plaintiff's vehicle until just before impact and could not tell how fast it was going. Plaintiff argues no evidence was presented of any negligence on his part and, therefore, the trial court erred in instructing the jury on comparative negligence.
It is true, as plaintiff argues, that in a case where absolutely no evidence is presented from which a jury could find the plaintiff was negligent, then it is reversible error for the trial court to instruct the jury on comparative negligence. See Moore v. Price, 158 Ga.App. 566(2), 281 S.E.2d 269 (1981); Taylor v. Haygood, 113 Ga.App. 30(2), 147 S.E.2d 48 (1966); Jacks v. Lambert, 111 Ga.App. 763(1), 143 S.E.2d 215 (1965). On the other hand, " " Carter v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 149 Ga.App. 867, 256 S.E.2d 149 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grogan v. Bennett
...which a legitimate process of reasoning can be carried on in respect to it." (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Jenkins v. Burns, 202 Ga.App. 579, 415 S.E.2d 30 (1992). We conclude that the trial court did not err in charging the jury on comparative 2. Grogan next asserts that the trial c......
-
Flournoy v. Brown, A97A1276
...now consider whether there existed any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support the giving of this charge. See Jenkins v. Burns, 202 Ga.App. 579, 415 S.E.2d 30. Appellee testified that this was the first time she had been driving on Rigdon Road. She stopped at the stop sign, but becau......
-
Leonard v. Miller, A92A2424
...[appellee Mrs. Miller's] negligence." Moore v. Price, supra, 158 Ga.App. at 570(2), 281 S.E.2d 269. Compare Jenkins v. Burns, 202 Ga.App. 579, 580, 415 S.E.2d 30 (1992) (wherein "the parties' accounts of the collision and the skid marks described by the officer" were found to authorize the ......
-
Beringause v. Fogleman Truck Lines, Inc.
...be something from which a legitimate process of reasoning can be carried on in respect to it.' (Cits.)" ' [Cit.]" Jenkins v. Burns, 202 Ga.App. 579, 415 S.E.2d 30 (1992). Evidence of Beringause's participation in the convoy supports an inference of negligence on his part sufficient for the ......