Parker v. Bryan, 35801
| Decision Date | 23 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 35801,35801,1 |
| Parties | J. C. PARKER v. Annice R. BRYAN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The petition, which alleged that the defendant was operating his automobile at a speed of approximately 70 miles perhour in close proximity to a preceding car and that when the driver of the preceding car suddenly slowed down to avoid striking some dogs which suddenly appeared in the road in front of his automobile, the defendant, in avoiding a rear-end collision with the preceding car, cut to his left and because of his speed, lost control of his car which eventually upset at a distance of some 240 feet down the highway, alleged a cause of action for gross negligence in an action by the widow of the defendant's guest who was killed when the defendant's automobile upset; therefore, the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.
Mrs. Annice R. Bryan, the widow of Thomas W. Bryan, sued Joel C. Parker for damages for the death of her husband. The petition alleged in substance: that on May 4, 1954, the plaintiff's husband was a guest in an automobile being driven by the defendant along Georgia Highway No. 18 in Wilkinson County, Georgia; that immediately preceding the defendant's automobile was an automobile being operated by Troy Upshaw; that as the two automobiles were being driven along, Upshaw, the driver of the front car, observed some dogs which had jumped out in the road in front of his automobile, and in order to avoid striking the dogs, he suddenly slowed down his vehicle; that at this time the defendant was driving at a speed of approximately 70 miles per hour in close proximity to the preceding car being driven by Upshaw; that when Upshaw's car suddenly slowed down, the defendant, because of his excessive speed and close proximity to the car in front, was unable to slow down and undertook to 'cut' his automobile to his left-hand side of the highway in order to avoid colliding with the Upshaw car; that because of his excessive speed, the defendant lost control of his automobile, which turned sidewise and skidded to the left-hand shoulder of the road; that after skidding past the front automobile, the defendant's car ran off the pavement on the left-hand side, turned toward the righthand side of the road, completely reversed itself and went off a six-foot fill on the right-hand side of the road, throwing both the defendant and the plaintiff's husband out of the automobile; that the automobile then turned over on the decedent, killing him; that the automobile turned over on the decedent at a point approximately 240 feet from the point where the defendant lost control of his automobile in the attempt to go around the Upshaw car; that at such point on the highway where the aforesaid events took place, the black-topped highway had a width of 21 feet with shoulders on each side of a width of about six feet; that the defendant immediately before and at the time he undertook to pass to Upshaw car was driving at a dangerous and excessive rate of speed of approximately 70 miles per hour, was traveling in too close proximity to the automobile in front of him, the exact distance separating said automobiles being unknown to the plaintiff, and was failing to keep a lookout ahead so as to be able to bring his automobile to a stop in the event of the sudden slowing down or stopping of the automobile in front of him; that the defendant was guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munday v. Brissette, 41609
...that certain acts of ordinary negligence, when considered together, could be considered to amount to gross negligence. Parker v. Bryan, 93 Ga.App. 88, 91, 91 S.E.2d 49. This charge was therefore not error for the reason The charge was harmful error, however, for the reason that it permitted......
-
Barnum v. Martin
...v. Peavy, 36 Ga.App. 202, 136 S.E. 96. However, speed coupled with other circumstances and amount to gross negligence. Parker v. Bryan, 93 Ga.App. 88, 91 S.E.2d 49. The evidence here is sufficient to support a jury finding that appellant-Barnum was guilty of excessive speed without keeping ......
-
Wood v. Olson
...to draw the inference is within the exclusive province of the jury. Fletcher v. Abbott, 92 Ga.App. 364, 88 S.E.2d 445; Parker v. Bryan, 93 Ga.App. 88, 91 S.E.2d 49; Id., 96 Ga.App. 283, 290, 99 S.E.2d 810; Blunt v. Spears, 93 Ga.App. 623, 632, 92 S.E.2d 573; Austin v. Smith, 96 Ga.App. 659,......
-
Thomason v. Willingham, 43764.
...the quotation from Blashfield found in Jackson v. Camp & Brown Produce Co., 92 Ga. App. 359, 363 (88 SE2d 540), and in Parker v. Bryan, 93 Ga. App. 88, 90 (91 SE2d 49), from which the charge here was obviously lifted, may be acceptable for use in the writing of a textbook or of an opinion, ......