Peacock v. Sheffield, 42445
| Decision Date | 31 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 42445,No. 3,42445,3 |
| Parties | Carl E. PEACOCK v. Mandie SHEFFIELD |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. On review of a judgment entered upon a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict this court limits its consideration to the grounds which are the same as those urged on motion for directed verdict.
2. Where under the facts of the case a jury question was presented, the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entering judgment for the plaintiff. Mandie Sheffield brought an action for the wrongful death of her son, Alford D. Sheffield, in Bleckley Superior Court against C. E. Peacock. The petition alleged that the defendant's car blocked the lane in which the deceased's car was traveling and that the deceased was killed when his car struck the defendant's 'illegally parked' car. The specific acts of negligence charged against the defendant were: (1) stopping and parking his automobile on the highway in violation of Code Ann. § 68-1668(a) (Ga.L.1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 597); (2) failing to give a signal by lights or flares as required by Code Ann. § 68-1668(b) (Ga.L.1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 597); (3) parking within 12 feet of the center line of the highway in violation of Code Ann. § 68-1670(a-15) (Ga.L.1953, Nov. Sess. pp. 556, 598; Ga.L.1963, p. 382); (4) failing to give any warning or notice of the illegally parked car. The prayers were for the recovery of $221,580 in damages, as the value of the deceased's life.
The defendant answered, denying the material allegations of the petition and the cause came on for trial.
The evidence showed that the fatal collision occurred at approximately 1:15 a.m. January 17, 1965, on the southbound lane of the Cochran-Eastman highway (U.S. 23). The defendant was proceeding south towards Eastman when his car stalled in the right-hand or southbound lane. The defendant and his sister, who was accompanying him, attempted, for some five minutes, to push the car off the road and were unable to do so, then got back into the car because of the cold. After stopping, the defendant's car remained stalled on the road for 15 to 20 minutes. There was room for the defendant to have pulled off the highway (if he was able to). The defendant was attempting to start the car or move it with the starter when the deceased's car crashed into the defendant's car from the rear. The deceased was also proceeding south on Highway 23; he passed a newspaper delivery truck, the driver testifying he was traveling around 50-55 m.p.h. when the deceased passed and that the deceased continued on about 300 yards ahead. The driver stated all he saw was the tail lights of deceased's car and then a blue-white flash when the collision occurred.
The defendant and his sister testified that they did not utilize any flares or signals but that the car lights were left on. The truck driver testified he couldn't see any other tail lights, lights, or flares before the collision but he could not determine whether the defendant's lights were burning because the deceased's car was between him and the other car.
State patrolmen who investigated the collision testified there were no skid marks on the highway at or near the scene, that the deceased's car struck the defendant's car directly from behind and based on the force of the impact, which drove the defendant's car some 150 feet, estimated the deceased's speed to be 65 m.p.h. The speed limit at night is 50 m.p.h.
As adduced from the testimony of the defendant and his sister, about 4 miles 'up the road' from the location of the occurrence the oil pressure in the defendant's car dropped and about a mile from the site of the collision the defendant slowed the automobile to around 10-15 m.p.h. and thus continued until the car abruptly halted. As explained by a mechanic, the reason for the car's mechanical failure was a hole in the motor from which the oil supply leaked, apparently caused by the engine's 'throwing a rod.' There was a meandering trail of oil some 300 yards long, which wandered at one point over the center line of the highway, leading up to the point of the collision.
Prior to the car's sudden stopping, the defendant denied hearing anything above his 'straight exhaust' noise although a witness testified that a rod being thrown could be heard above even 'straight exhaust' sounds while driving at a slow rate of speed.
There was testimony that the defendant had been drinking, which he admitted; however, he denied that he was intoxicated.
At the close of the evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict which was denied by the trial judge. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $10,000; whereupon, the defendant filed a written motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. After hearing evidence, the trial judge overruled and denied the motion. The defendant's notice of appeal is taken from the order overruling the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The enumeration of errors filed in this court specifies that the trial judge erred in: (1) overruling the defendant's motion for a directed verdict; (2) overruling the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (3) entering judgment for the plaintiff.
J. Corbett Peek, Jr., Atlanta, Milton Harrison, Eastman, Glenville Haldi, Atlanta, for appellant.
Smith & Harrington, Will Ed Smith, Eastman, for appellee.
1. At the close of the evidence, counsel for the defendant moved for a directed verdict in the following language which we quote in part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. C & S Realty Co.
...118 Ga.App. 607(2), 164 S.E.2d 883 (1968), "except in plain, palpable, and indisputable cases. (Cits.)" Peacock v. Sheffield, 115 Ga.App. 116, 121, 153 S.E.2d 619, 622 (1967); Macon Telegraph Publishing Co. v. Graden, 79 Ga.App. 230(1(d)), 53 S.E.2d 371 There was no factual dispute here tha......
-
Clements v. Long, 65468
...v. Caldwell, 45 Ga.App. 193, 163 S.E. 920; Higdon Grocery Co. v. Faircloth, 107 Ga.App. 558, 130 S.E.2d 760; Peacock v. Sheffield, 115 Ga.App. 116, 120-121(2), 153 S.E.2d 619. Under the circumstances here we are unable to hold as a matter of law that the guest passenger was afforded a reaso......
-
Revco Discount Drug Centers of Georgia, Inc. v. Famble, 69138
...[Cit.]" Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Mitcham, 127 Ga.App. 102, 105(2), 192 S.E.2d 549 (1972). See also Peacock v. Sheffield, 115 Ga.App. 116, 119(1), 153 S.E.2d 619 (1967); Adams v. Smith, 129 Ga.App. 850, 853(6), 201 S.E.2d 639 (1973); J.C. Penney Co. v. Davis & Davis, 158 Ga.App. 169(1),......
-
McClurd v. Reddick
...within the peculiar province of the jury. Mathis-Akins, etc., Inc. v. Tucker, 127 Ga.App. 699(1), 194 S.E.2d 604; Peacock v. Sheffield, 115 Ga.App. 116(2), 153 S.E.2d 619; Long Const. Co. v. Ryals, 102 Ga.App. 66(1), 115 S.E.2d 726; Cox v. Norris, 70 Ga.App. 580(3), 28 S.E.2d 888. Cf. Jones......