Morrow v. Southeastern Stages
| Decision Date | 10 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | 29686. |
| Citation | 22 S.E.2d 336,68 Ga.App. 142 |
| Parties | MORROW v. SOUTHEASTERN STAGES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Tolnas & Middlebrooks, of Athens, and Burress & Dillard, of Atlanta for plaintiff in error.
Erwin & Nix, of Athens, for defendant in error.
Harry P. Morrow brought suit against Southeastern Stages Inc. and American Fidelity & Casualty Company, its insurance carrier to recover damages because of injuries sustained by him through the alleged negligence of the defendant bus company while riding as a guest in an automobile being driven by one Therman Giles. The petition alleged, in substance, that on or about September 20, 1940, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he was riding as a guest in the automobile of the said Giles, the car being operated in a westerly direction along U.S. highway 29, from Athens, Georgia, to Atlanta Georgia, and at a point about three miles out from Athens and approximately in front of an establishment known as "Pines Tourist Camp"; that there is a long curve in said highway at and near the said camp which is about 100 feet east of a sharp point in the curve; that operators of vehicles traversing the highway at said curve, going in either direction, had at all times a clear view ahead of them of others who might be using the highway at the curve; that when the defendant bus company's coach, approaching the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding, came from around the sharp part of the curve, about 100 feet west of a point directly in front of the said camp, and when it was near the automobile the operator of the coach suddenly and without warning turned it to the left on that part of the highway upon which the automobile was being driven; that it ran against and knocked the automobile off the pavement over on the shoulder of the road and out in the weeds at the extreme right of the road on the side the automobile was using and came to a stop against the automobile, severely injuring the plaintiff in described particulars. It was alleged that the defendant was negligent in that the operator of the bus did not turn it to the right of the center of the highway as he approached the automobile so as to pass without interference; that upon meeting the automobile he turned the coach to the left of the highway, in front of the automobile; that in rounding the curve leading to the point of collision the operator of the coach did not keep it as far to the right as was reasonably possible; that he was driving the coach at a greater speed than was reasonably safe; that he did not keep a proper lookout for traffic ahead of the coach; that in rounding the curve he did not reduce his speed as is required by law; and that he drove the coach on his left side of the highway at said time and place contrary to law.
The defendant filed an answer denying the substantial allegations of the petition, and further alleged that the collision was due entirely to the negligent manner in which the Ford automobile was being operated; that at the time and place of the collision the car was being driven on the wrong side of the road at a greater rate of speed than was safe under the circumstances and that the injuries suffered by the plaintiff, if any, were in no way attributable to any act on the part of the defendant, its agents, servants, or employees. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and the plaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled, and the exception here is to that judgment.
1. One of the special grounds of the motion for new trial complains that the court erred in charging the jury, "I charge you, if you find from the evidence this collision was an accident, occurring without negligence on the part of either party, the plaintiff or the driver of the Ford car or the driver of the bus, then the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover a verdict in this case, but [it] would be considered a mere casualty and no blame is attributable to any one if it was an accident"; it being contended that there were no pleadings or evidence to authorize such a charge, the issue being solely whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the bus driver or that of the driver of the automobile, and an "accident" being in no wise involved. We think the point is well taken.
The evidence was such as to authorize the jury to return a verdict for either party but, as is shown by the following summary, entirely excluded any issue of "accident" and none was made by the pleadings: It was shown that the plaintiff was an invited guest in the automobile and had no control over it and was not engaged in a joint adventure with the driver. On the afternoon of September 20, 1940, at about 4 o'clock, the automobile being driven by one Therman Giles, and also being occupied as guests by the plaintiff and another young man on the front seat and two other young men on the rear seat, collided with a bus of the defendant bus company on the Atlanta-Athens highway, the automobile being driven towards Atlanta and the bus being driven towards Athens. As a result of the collision the plaintiff sustained serious injuries. About 3 1/2 miles out from Athens there is a curve in the highway, and the collision occurred just after the bus had rounded the sharp part of the curve and had reached a point about opposite an abandoned "drive-in" known as "Pines Tourist Camp," located to the right of the bus some distance from the highway, and having in front of it a space of ground approximately 100 feet x 70 feet about on a level with the highway. According to the evidence for the plaintiff, the automobile was traveling along its proper side of the highway, and the bus came around the curve on the wrong side and crashed into the automobile. As soon as the driver of the car detected the negligence of the bus driver he made an effort to avoid a collision by turning to the right, and the car was driven somewhat off the pavement and was struck on its left front, whereas the collision would have been avoided if the bus had been driven to its right onto the space of ground in front of the "Pines Tourist Camp" and into which the driver had full opportunity to turn. According to testimony on behalf of the bus company, the Ford automobile was being driven on its left side of the road, and the bus was being driven on its proper side at all times. The bus on rounding the curve slowed down its speed to about 35 miles an hour, then picked up speed to about 40 to 45 miles an hour shortly before the collision. When the vehicles were about 20 to 25 feet apart the bus turned sharply to the left and the automobile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohran v. Douglasville Concrete Products, Inc., 58627
...result of an accident." Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Jones, 132 Ga. 189, 196, 63 S.E. 834, 838 (1909). See also Morrow v. Southeastern Stages, 68 Ga.App. 142, 22 S.E.2d 336 (1942). The evidence not supporting the charge on "accident," that the appellee plead it as a defense does not require a c......
-
Bass v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co.
... ... Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Barnes, 46 Ga.App ... 158(l-c), 167 S.E. 217; Morrow v. Southeastern ... Stages, 68 Ga.App. 142, 22 S.E.2d 336; Savannah Electric ... & Power Co. v ... ...
-
Stanfield v. Smith
...which the person was placed. See Code § 102-103. Richter v. Atlantic Co., 65 Ga.App. 605, 608, 16 S.E.2d 259; Morrow v. Southeastern Stages Inc., 68 Ga.App. 142, 146, 22 S.E.2d 336; Brewer v. Gittings, 102 Ga.App. 367, 376, 116 S.E.2d 500; Cartey v. Smith, 105 Ga.App. 809, 812, 125 S.E.2d 7......
-
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hall
...charge would have been misleading to the jury. See Everett v. Clegg, 213 Ga. 168, 171(4), 97 S.E.2d 689; Morrow v. Southeastern Stages, Inc., 68 Ga.App. 142(1), 146, 22 S.E.2d 336; Bush v. Skelton, 91 Ga.App. 83(1), 84 S.E.2d 835. This charge also would have been argumentative if given as 7......