Jordan v. Lee, 23285.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 23285.,23285. |
| Citation | 179 S.E. 739,51 Ga.App. 99 |
| Parties | JORDAN . v. LEE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Virlyn B. Moore, Judge.
Suit by Minnie Jordan against Mattie J. Lee. Judgment for defendant, plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Conforming to answers of the Supreme Court to certified questions in 179 S. E. 102.
Horace & Frank Holden and Lewis C. Russell, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
McDaniel, Neely & Marshall, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Plaintiff sued for damages because of injuries to her while riding as a guest in an automobile being driven by the defendant She alleged certain acts as gross negligence. Defendant demurred to the petition, upon the ground that no gross negligence was alleged. This demurrer was overruled, and no exception was taken thereto. On the trial the plaintiff substantially proved her case as laid in the petition. There was no evidence offered by the defendant. Plaintiff's evidence was uncontradicted, and did not tend to prove a state of facts unfavorable to her case. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, the effect of which was that the acts of negligence charged did not constitute gross negligence. Plaintiff moved for a new trial solely upon the general grounds, and to the judgment overruling the motion she excepts. McDuffie v. Ocean Steamship Co., 5 Ga. App. 125, 129, 62 S. E. 1008, 1010; Jordan v. Lee, 180 Ga.----, 179 S. E. 102.
2. In this state the question as to what acts do or do not constitute negligence, as well as the degree of negligence, is exclusively for determination by the jury, and except in those cases where a particular act is declared to be negligence, either by statute or by a valid ordinance of a municipal corporation, a trial judge should not as a matter of law declare a particular act to be negligence. Jordan v. Lee, supra; Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Evans, 115 Ga. 315, 41 S. E. 631, 90 Am. St, Rep. 116; Atlanta, etc., Ry. Co. v. Bryant, 110 Ga. 247 (2), 34 S. E. 350; Fenelon v. Southern R. Co., 143 Ga. 26, 84 S. E. 57. Even though the facts in the case are uncontradicted and uncontroverted, where they are such that there is room for difference of opinion between reasonable men as to whether or not negligence should be inferred, the right to draw the inference is peculiarly within the exclusive province of the jury. 45 C. J. 1292, citing Fenelon v. Southern R. Co., supra; Chenall v. Palmer Brick Co., 117 Ga. 106, 43 S. E. 443; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Glad-man, 1 Ga. App. 259, 58 S. E. 249.
(a) The effect of the judgment on the general demurrer in this case was that a jury might find or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Blum
...to determine whether or not such conduct constitutes negligence, if reasonable minds might differ upon the question. See Jordan v. Lee, 51 Ga.App. 99, 179 S.E. 739; Chenall v. Palmer Brick Co., 117 Ga. 106, 43 S.E. 443; Macon Tel. Pub. Co. v. Graden, 79 Ga.App. 230, 53 S.E.2d 371. When, on ......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Blum
... ... minds might differ upon the question. See Jordan v ... Lee, 51 Ga.App. 99, 179 S.E. 739; Chenall v. Palmer ... Brick Co., 117 Ga. 106, 43 S.E ... ...
-
Sammons v. Webb
...charged constitutes negligence, or whether such conduct, if negligence, has been proved, is exlusively a jury question. Jordan v. Lee, 51 Ga.App. 99, 179 S.E. 739; Georgia Power Co. v. Blum, 80 Ga.App. 618(2), 57 S.E.2d 18. It is also a jury question where reasonable minds might disagree as......
-
Yeager v. Jacobs
...minds cannot differ as to the conclusion to be reached. Martin v. McAfee & Co., 31 Ga.App. 690, 695(2), 122 S.E. 71; Jordan v. Lee, 51 Ga.App. 99(2), 179 S.E. 739; Lewis v. Williams, 78 Ga.App. 494, 501(3), 51 S.E.2d 532; Georgia Power Co. v. Blum, 80 Ga.App. 618, 628(2), 57 S.E.2d 18; Long......