Porch v. Wright, s. 42741-42744
| Decision Date | 30 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Nos. 42741-42744,s. 42741-42744,2 |
| Citation | 156 S.E.2d 532,116 Ga.App. 138 |
| Parties | D. C. PORCH v. J. F. WRIGHT. Mrs. Laverne BLACK v. J. F. WRIGHT. D. C. PORCH v. Mrs. Otsie B. WRIGHT. Mrs. Laverne BLACK v. Mrs. Otsie B. WRIGHT |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Eugene G. Partain, E. A. Simpson, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Grace W. Thomas, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. 'Negligence' or 'actionable negligence' as a legal term has received various definitions. See Southern Ry. Co. v. Chatman, 124 Ga. 1026, 1031, 53 S.E. 692, 579, 6 L.R.A.,N.S., 283, 4 Ann.Cas. 675. Southern Ry. Co. v. Liley, 75 Ga.App. 489, 493, 43 S.E.2d 576. "As negligence necessarily involves a violation or disregard of some duty which is known to the person charged therewith, it follows that knowledge of the facts out of which the duty arises is an essential element for consideration in determining whether one has exercised reasonable care or has been guilty of negligence.' 45 C.J. 651; Miller v. Southern Ry. Co., 21 Ga.App. 367(4b), 94 S.E. 619; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Shields, 23 Ga.App. 476, 98 S.E. 408; Southern Transportation Co. v. Harper, 118 Ga. 672(2), 45 S.E. 458; Atlanta Baseball Co. v. Lawrence, 38 Ga.App. 497, 144 S.E. 351. In this connection, the governing consideration is what the person sought to be charged should reasonably have foreseen, the rule being that one is bound to anticipate the reasonable and natural consequences of his own conduct. One is charged with knowledge or notice of what a reasonably prudent person would have foreseen, and is negligent if he fails to use the care necessary to avoid danger which should have been anticipated. 'The standard by which to test the question of negligence vel non is undoubtedly the common experience of mankind; its existence implying the want of that care and diligence which ordinarily prudent men would use under the circumstances of the particular case.' 1 Shearman & Redfield on the Law of Negligence, Vol. 1, p. 16, § 9h; Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Ryles, 84 Ga. 420, 11 S.E. 499; Harden v. Georgia Ry. Co., 3 Ga.App. 344, 59 S.E. 1122; Southern Ry. Co. v. Chatman, 124 Ga. 1026, 53 S.E. 692, 6 L.R.A.,N.S., 283, 4 Ann.Cas. 675.' Norris v. Macon Terminal Co., 58 Ga.App. 313, 317, 198 S.E. 272. See also Whitaker v. Jones, McDougald, Smith, Pew Co., 69 Ga.App. 711, 26 S.E.2d 545; Butler v. Jones, 85 Ga.App. 158, 68 S.E.2d 173. Malone v. Lombard Ponds, Inc., 105 Ga.App. 828, 829, 125 S.E.2d 697.
2. Where, as in the present case, one person persuades or importunes another to permit the one person's son, known to such person to be a careless driver, to drive the other person's automobile for the purpose of carrying the son of the one and the son of the other to a moving picture show, the one representing to the other that the son driver was a good driver and that he was fully covered by the insurance of the one to drive any car and could be trusted as a safe driver to drive the boys to the movies, and where such driver negligently drove on the wrong side of a roadway causing a collision with another automobile and injury to the occupants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Sheffield
...501, 133 S.E.2d 383; Roebuck v. Payne, 109 Ga.App. 525(2), 136 S.E.2d 399; Lee v. Swann, 111 Ga.App. 88, 140 S.E.2d 562; Porch v. Wright, 116 Ga.App. 138, 156 S.E.2d 532; Saunders v. Vikers, 116 Ga.App. 733(5, 6, 7), 158 S.E.2d 324; Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 117 Ga.App. 512, 520......
-
Aretz v. United States
...466. In determining the existence of negligence, a governing consideration is what should have been reasonably foreseen. Porch v. Wright, 116 Ga.App. 138, 156 S.E.2d 532; Pegg v. Knight's, Inc., 112 Ga.App. 437, 145 S.E.2d 632. Liability does not depend upon anticipating the particular inju......
-
City of Douglasville v. Queen
...be sought and found, the observance of which duty would have averted or avoided the injury or damage....' [Cit.]" Porch v. Wright, 116 Ga. App. 138(1), 156 S.E.2d 532 (1967). "`No matter how innocent the plaintiff may be, he is not entitled to recover unless the defendant did something that......
-
Whitlock v. Moore, s. A11A1475
...the rule being that one is bound to anticipate the reasonable and natural consequences of his own conduct.” Porch v. Wright, 116 Ga.App. 138, 138(1), 156 S.E.2d 532 (1967). As we have explained before, “[o]ne is charged with knowledge or notice of what a reasonably prudent person would have......