Richards & Associates, Inc. v. Studstill

• Decision Date: 28 September 1955
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 35877,35877,2
• Citation: 90 S.E.2d 56,92 Ga.App. 853
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. v. Pennie M. STUDSTILL

Page 56

90 S.E.2d 56

92 Ga.App. 853

RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES, Inc. v. Pennie M. STUDSTILL.

No. 35877.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Sept. 28, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, Nov. 1, 1955.

Syllabus by the Court

1. (a) Where an automobile operator approaching an intersection of main public streets in a city is so inattentive as not to keep a constant lookout ahead and as a result thereof to run into an object in his path which is clearly visible, it is ordinarily a question for jury determination whether such conduct amounts to gross negligence.

(b) Where two defendants are sued jointly as alleged joint tortfeasors, the causal connection between an original act of negligence on the part of one defendant, and injury resulting from an intervening negligent act of the other is not necessarily broken if the circumstances are such that the acts of negligence combine to cause the injury, and the first defendant had reason to anticipate that as a result of its negligence the negligence of the other defendant might occur. Accordingly, the petition here states a cause of action against the complaining defendant corporation, the negligence of which in improperly replacing a stop sign at the entrance to a through street is alleged to have combined with other negligent acts of the host motorist to cause the plaintiff's injuries.

2. Under the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways, Ga.L.1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 556 et seq., Code, Ann.Supp. § 68-1617, it is negligence per se to alter, injure or remove any traffic-control device or any part thereof without lawful authority where such device or signal has been properly erected, whether by the State Highway Department within its jurisdiction or by municipal authorities within their jurisdiction.

Pennie Studstill filed an action in the Superior Court of Dodge County against Mrs. Sybil Liggin, a resident of Dodge County, and Richards & Associates, Inc., a nonresident of such county seeking damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff alleges that she was a guest in the automobile driven by the defendant Mrs. Liggin; that this car was proceeding in a southerly direction on Church Street approaching the intersection of that street with Academy Avenue, a main thoroughfare of the City of Dublin, between noon and 1 p. m. at a time when traffic on Academy Avenue was particularly heavy, in the main business area of the city; that said defendant 'was driving at the excessive and unlawful speed of 35 miles an hour; did not notice the very heavy traffic on Academy Avenue which was dangerous and a clearly visible obstruction in the way of her automobile; was looking to the side and not keeping a constant lookout ahead, being engaged in was looking to the side and not keeping a of the car relative to canning peaches. She did not stop at the intersection but on the other hand drove headlong into said intersection at said excessive rate of speed, attentive only to the question of canning peaches, and without paying any attention whatever to the manner in which she was driving her car or what objects might be in front of it', and in so doing collided, with another automobile proceeding across Academy Avenue [which] had entered the intersection * * * and had more than one-half traversed said intersection when the said Mrs. Liggin drove her automobile out of Church Street into said intersection and crashed headlong into the automobile.'

It is further alleged that Academy Avenue had, by appropriate pleaded city ordinance, been declared a boulevard or through street; that the governing authorities thereof had caused to be placed on the northwest corner of said intersection a two-foot 'Stop' sign; that on July 29 the defendant Richards & Associates, Inc., was engaged in installing certain gas pipe lines pursuant to a contract with the city; that defendant, through its employees, laid a line of gas pipe in the earth between the curb and sidewalk on the west side of Church Street and in doing so removed the stop sign; that after the pipe was laid the stop sign was replaced by said defendant in such negligent manner that instead of facing traffic approaching Academy it was turned at right angles and faced the Academy Avenue traffic instead and was thus not visible to Church Street traffic which it was supposed to warn; that such defendant in the exercise of ordinary care knew that a natural consequence of such negligence would be the failure of a motorist to observe the stop sign a sufficient distance from the intersection to have the vehicle under control and being it to a stop before entering the intersection, and that 'if said defendant had replaced said stop sign in its original position the defendant Mrs. Sybil Liggin would have observed the same 150 to 200 feet away, and have had her automobile under control, and would have stopped the same before entering the intersection.'

The trial court overruled the general demurrer of Richards & Associates, Inc., and the exception is to this judgment.

Nelson & Nelson, Carl K. Nelson, Dublin, A. Russell Ross, Eastman, for plaintiff in error.

Will Ed Smith, Eastman, for defendant in error.

TOWNSEND, Judge.

1. One contention of the plaintiff in error is that if the petition sets out a cause of action against the co-defendant Mrs. Liggin for gross negligence it shows on its face that such negligence constituted an independent intervening cause of the plaintiff's injuries so as to render the corporation not liable for any negligence on its part, and if, on the other hand, as is contended, the petition does not set out a cause of action...