Richardson v. Potter
| Decision Date | 08 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 40600,No. 1,40600,1 |
| Citation | 136 S.E.2d 493,109 Ga.App. 559 |
| Parties | Virginia N. RICHARDSON v. Dennis E. POTTER et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
A. S. Dodd, Jr., Statesboro, for plaintiff in error.
Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Luhr G. C. Beckmann, Savannah, Allen & Edenfield, Francis W. Allen, Statesboro Adams, Adams & Brennan, Edward T. Brennan, Savannah, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Plaintiff, a guest passenger of the defendant Adkins, brought an action to recover for damages received in a collision between a car driven by Adkins and a car belonging to Sisson and driven by Potter, the petition alleging in part as follows: Plaintiff does further show that as said vehicles approached each other in opposite directions, defendant Walter Brooks Adkins, with utter disregard for the safety of himself, his passengers and others, did drive his vehicle to the left, crossing said center line and the northerly bound traffic lane of said highway, and onto the paved parking area of said Sand Hill Motel which was on the easterly side of said highway.
Plaintiff does further show that when defendant Adkins did so drive his vehicle to the left, defendant Delzon Burdette Sisson's agent, defendant Dennis E. Potter, driving his vehicle at a speed of 55 miles per hour did apply his brakes and skidded 40 feet and losing control of said vehicle did allow said vehicle to swerve and skid to the right where the front end of defendant Delzon Burdette Sisson's vehicle did strike with great force and violence the right front door area of defendant Walter Brooks Adkins' vehicle. The point of impact was just east of the edge of the paved portion of said highway with the right side of defendant Adkins' car at the east edge of said paved highway. Plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused by the following negligent acts of the defendants: (a) Defendant Adkins, in cutting across the northbound traffic lane when the other vehicle was approaching within approximately 250 and 300 feet, such act being in violation of Ga.L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 582; (b) Defendant Adkins in failing to drive his vehicle with ordinary care for the safety of others on the highway; (c) Defendant Adkins in failing to wait until the vehicle driven by defendant Potter had passed before crossing the northbound traffic lane, such constituting lack of ordinary care. (d) Defendant Potter in driving his vehicle after dark at a speed of 55 miles per hour, such act being in violation of Ga.L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 577, and negligence per se. (e) Defendant Potter in failing to drive his vehicle with due care for the safety of others using the highway. (f) Defendant Potter in failing to have his vehicle under proper control. (g) Defendant Potter in failing to drive his vehicle to the left after he ascertained the presence of Adkins' vehicle across the northbound traffic lane and thus avoid the collision. (h) Defendant Sisson in all acts of defendant Potter, defendant Potter being agent of defendant Sisson. (i) Defendant Sisson in allowing defendant Potter, a youth of 16 years of age, to operate his vehicle upon a heavily traveled main highway at a rapid and excessive rate of speed with said speed being 55 miles per hour at 12:15 a. m., all of which things were known to the defendant Sisson.
The defendant Adkins was stricken as a party on oral motion on the grounds that the petition alleged no gross negligence as against him. There is no exception to this ruling. The plaintiff's evidence failed to show that the automobile being driven by Potter was being driven in excess of 50 miles per hour; failed to show that he did not have his vehicle under control; failed to show that Potter was driving his vehicle without due care for the safety of others using the highway; failed to show that Potter had an opportunity to drive to the left and avoid the collision after he ascertained or could have ascertained the presence of Adkins' car in Potter's lane of traffic; failed to show that at the time and place of collision the highway was a heavily traveled main highway.
When plaintiff rested, the defendant made a motion for nonsuit and prior to the decision of the trial judge on the motion plaintiff made a motion to reopen the case so as to permit her to introduce the testimony on cross examination of the defendant Adkins. The trial judge sustained the motion for nonsuit and refused to permit the plaintiff to reopen the case. The case is before this court for review of these rulings of the trial judge. A motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millholland v. Oglesby
...512; Grasham v. Southern Ry. Co., 111 Ga.App. 158, 141 S.E.2d 189); exclusion of cross-examination on deposition (Richardson v. Potter, 109 Ga.App. 559(4), 136 S.E.2d 493).7 If the stay is an exercise of the court's equity power, as opposed to the statutory power, it may be appealable in th......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daugherty
...143; Wilson v. Barrow, 107 Ga.App. 555(4), 130 S.E.2d 812; Fricks v. Cole, 109 Ga.App. 143, 146(3), 135 S.E.2d 512; Richardson v. Potter, 109 Ga.App. 559(4), 136 S.E.2d 493; Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Dressel, 109 Ga.App. 465, 136 S.E.2d 525, but see Old Colony Ins. Co. v. Dressel, 220 Ga. 354,......
- Bolton v. Creety, 40482