Peavy v. Peavy

• Decision Date: 14 December 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 17665.)
• Parties: PEAVY et al. v. PEAVY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

36 Ga.App. 202

136 S.E. 96

PEAVY et al.

v.PEAVY.

(No. 17665.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Dec. 14, 1926.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Pulton County; E. E. Pomeroy, Judge.

Action by Eugenia Peavy against R. H. Peavy and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed.

Eugenia Peavy's petition, as amended (the formal parts and the parts not necessary for a decision upon the demurrer interposed being omitted), was as follows:

"(1) The defendants in this action are C. D. Peavy, R. H. Peavy, and I. C. Edgerton, all of said county, and Edgerton Manufacturing Company, a corporation, doing business in and maintaining an office and place of business in said county. (2) Said defendants have damaged your petitioner in the sum of $15,000, for and on account of the facts herein stated. (3) On the 14th day of May, 1925, petitioner was invited to ride from her home, 24 North View avenue, in said county, to the business section of Atlanta, by her brothers, C. D. Peavyand R. H. Peavy, in the Ford coupe automobile, which belonged to R. H. Peavy. C. D. Peavy was instructed by R. H. Peavy to drive said automobile. Accordingly, C. D. Peavy drove said automobile along Highland avenue toward the city of Atlanta, with R. H. Peavy riding beside him, directing him as the owner of said car, and assenting to the acts of C. D. Peavy in the course of his driving of said automobile. Your petitioner rode in said automobile as a passenger while it was being so driven. (4) When said automobile reached the intersection of Highland and Virginia avenues, a violent collision took place between said automobile and another Ford coupe automobile, which was driven by defendant I. C. Edgerton. Both of said automobiles were exceeding the speed limit allowed by law at said intersection, to wit, 10 miles per hour, as they reached and began to traverse the said intersection. And the said exceeding of the speed limit by said automobile, driven and directed by defendants as aforesaid, was the direct and proximate cause of the collision which took place. (5) The said intersection is the intersection of two public highways, both Highland avenue and Virginia avenue being public highways in the city of Atlanta, Fulton county, Ga. (6) The law of the state of Georgia provided that, while approaching and traversing such an intersection, all drivers of automobiles should drive their machines at a speed not greater than 10 miles per hour, and this law was being violated by both said drivers, C. D. Peavy and I. C. Edgerton, while approaching and while traversing said intersection. (7) Said C. D. Peavy was guilty of gross negligence in operating said automobile at the said unlawful speed, the said negligence tending to endanger human life, and particularly to endanger the life of petitioner. (8) Said I. C. Edgerton was also guilty of gross negligence in operating said automobile which he was driving at the said unlawful speed, and said negligence tending to endanger human life, and particularly to endanger the life of petitioner. (9) The said acts of gross negligence on the part of the two drivers, C. D. Peavy and I. C. Edgerton, were jointly responsible for the collision which took place between said automobiles. (10) If C. D. Peavy had been driving at a slower and lawful speed, the automobile driven by I. C. Edgerton would have sped by in front of the Peavy car, in spite of the unlawful speed of I. C. Edgerton. (11) If I. C. Edgerton had been driving at a slower and lawful speed, the automobile driven by C. D. Peavy would have sped by in front of the Edgerton car, in spite of the unlawful speed of C. D. Peavy. (12) It was therefore the combination of the two unlawful acts of the two drivers, I. C. Edgerton and C. D. Peavy, which was the direct and proximate cause of the collision which took place. (13) Your petitioner was hurled out of the car driven by C. D. Peavy by the impact of said collision, and was pinned under the said car when it turned over on her, and as a result of said collision she suffered numerous wounds, bruises, and injuries, part of them temporary and part permanent as follows: [A detailed description of the plaintiff's injuries is here given.] (17) Petitioner was free from all fault. (18) Said C. D. Peavy, upon seeing the said Edgerton automobile approaching said intersection, speeded up said automobile which said Peavy was driv ing, and attempted to beat said Edgerton across the said intersection, said...