Roberts v. Phillips, (No. 16858.)

• Decision Date: 20 September 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 16858.)
• Citation: 35 Ga.App. 743,134 S.E. 837
• Parties: ROBERTS. v. PHILLIPS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

35 Ga.App. 743

134 S.E. 837

ROBERTS.

v.PHILLIPS.

(No. 16858.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Sept. 20, 1926.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

rate of speed, or driver of approaching car anticipating that plaintiff was on wrong side of road, held proper, requests not being calculated to enlighten jury.

Error from Superior Court, Muscogee County; Wm. de L. Worsley, Judge pro hac.

Suit by J. J. Phillips against Columbus Roberts, Jr., by guardian. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

McCutchen, Bowden & Gaggstatter, of Columbus, for plaintiff in error.

Foley & Chappell, of Columbus, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, J. [1] 1. Where a motorcar traveling along a public highway has been brought to a stop in the highway, and another car is approaching it from the front, both cars, notwithstanding one is stationary, are meeting each other in the sense of section 3 of the act of 1921 (Ga. I,. 1921, p. 255 [Park's Code Supp. 1922, § S28 u u 7]), regulating motor vehicles, which provides that:

"Whenever any operator of a motor vehicle * * * shall meet on a public * * * highway * * * any other vehicle, approaching in the opposite direction, the operator shall turn his vehicle to the right so as to give one-half of the traveled roadway, if practicable, and a fair opportunity to the other to pass by without unnecessary interference."

2. In a suit for personal injuries, where there is evidence to the effect that the plaintiff, while operating a motorcar along a public highway on a dark, rainy night, had brought the car to a stop upon the left side of the road and had alighted and placed himself in front of the car, leaving the car standing thus with headlights burning and with a blinding light shining ahead in the highway, and while in this situation the plaintiff and his car were run into by an approaching car and injured, it was error for the trial judge to fail to give to the jury the following charge, requested in writing, which was not covered by the charge given:

"It is the duty of the operator of a motor vehicle to operate the same in such a manner as to give all other operators of vehicles the right to one-half of the traveled roadway, if practicable, and also a fair opportunity to the other operator of the vehicle to pass without any unnecessary to interference."

3. It was also error to fail to give the following charge requested in writing, which was not covered by the charge given:

"If a person...