Rigdon v. Williams
| Decision Date | 16 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 49274,No. 2,49274,2 |
| Citation | 207 S.E.2d 591,132 Ga.App. 176 |
| Parties | Mrs. W. J. RIGDON v. Mrs. Gertie L. WILLIAMS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sharpe, Hartley & Newton, W. Ward Newton, Lyons, for appellant.
Zorn & Royal, William A. Zorn, Jesup, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Plaintiff, Mrs. Williams, sued Mrs. Rigdon to recover for injuries sustained when she was riding as a guest passenger in Mrs. Rigdon's car and the car of C. L. Mathis collided with that of Mrs. Rigdon, the defendant at a street intersection in Jesup. The intersection was controlled by a stop sign and Mr. Mathis testified that he had entered the intersection and that Mrs. Rigdon slowed down at the intersection and then suddenly entered it ahead of him and at a time when he was too close to avoid striking the side of the Rigdon car. On cross examination he was not clear as to whether she stopped or slowed down at the intersection. Mrs. Williams suffered some broken ribs and contends that her injuries aggravated her arthritic condition. The defendant offered no evidence, and moved for a directed verdict, which was denied, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Defendant moved for judgment n.o.v. and for new trial in the alternative. These were denied and she appeals. Errors are enumerated on (1) the court's refusal to direct a verdict for the defendant, (2) in partially charging the rule of Code Ann. § 68-1652 and failing to give the entire section in charge, (3) charging on the award of damages for future pain and suffering which appellant contends was unsupported by any evidence to authorize the charge, (4) charging on the award of damages for future material impairment of any power or faculty, which appellant contends was wholly unsupported by any evidence to authorize the charge. Held:
1. The motion for directed verdict, which forms the basis of the motion for a judgment n.o.v., was grounded on the failure of the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence. Plaintiff was a guest passenger in the defendant's car and in order to recover against the host the law requires proof of gross negligence. Manees v. Scicchitano, 122 Ga.App. 591(1), 178 S.E.2d 262. The evidence as to whether the defendant failed to stop at the stop light as it may have required her to do does become somewhat equivocal when, on cross examination, the witness who had testified as to that fact admitted that due to the passage of time he could no longer be positive in his assertions. While this weakens the testimony, it is still for the jury to say whether there was proof of it. We think that this, coupled with the fact that defendant's car did, as Mr. Mathis testified, pass three cars that had stopped ahead of her and come out into the intersection when Mathis no longer had the time to avoid the collision, carries the issue of whether there was such inattentiveness in entering the intersection as to authorize a finding of gross negligence. Implicit in the verdict returned is that finding. It is true that we have heretofore indicated that the violation of a city ordinance or of the state law as to speed alone, or as to traversing an intersection alone, would not be sufficient to authorize a finding of gross negligence, but rather of ordinary negligence. Hopkins v. Sipe, 58 Ga.App. 511, 513, 199 S.E. 246; Hennon v. Hardin, 78...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maddox v. Rozek
...Company v. Anderson (1961), 77 Nev. 68, 358 P.2d 892; Kaltenheuser v. Sesker (1963) 255 Iowa 110, 121 N.W.2d 672; Rigdon v. Williams (1974), 132 Ga.App. 176, 207 S.E.2d 591; Smith v. Hamm (1950), 314 Ky. 339, 235 S.W.2d 437; Clark v. Hemingford (1947), 147 Neb. 1044, 26 N.W.2d 15; Pine v. R......
-
Smith v. Southeastern Stages, Inc.
...such circumstances is sufficient to permit the jury to find that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence. See Rigdon v. Williams, 132 Ga. App. 176, 207 S.E.2d 591 (1974); Clements v. Riser, 123 Ga.App. 595, 182 S.E.2d 169 (1971); Parker v. Johnson, 97 Ga.App. 261, 102 S.E.2d 917 (1958)......
-
Barnum v. Martin
...keeping a proper lookout, excessive speed under existing conditions of the road and inattentiveness in driving. Rigdon v. Williams, 132 Ga.App. 176, 207 S.E.2d 591. 'When facts alleged as constituting gross negligence are such that there is room for difference of opinion between reasonable ......
-
American Spacers, Ltd. v. Ross
...in denying the motion for judgment n.o.v. Gibson's Products v. Edwards, 146 Ga.App. 678(1), 247 S.E.2d 183; accord: Rigdon v. Williams, 132 Ga.App. 176(1), 207 S.E.2d 591; McLoon v. Amoco Oil Co., 155 Ga.App. 416(3), 271 S.E.2d 2. C C Financial contends the trial court erred in charging the......