Rogers v. Johnson
Decision Date | 21 November 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 36119,Nos. 1,2,36119,s. 1 |
Citation | 96 S.E.2d 285,94 Ga.App. 666 |
Parties | Claude L. ROGERS v. Lucy C. JOHNSON |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The petition containing general allegations of negligence was sufficient as against general demurrer.
2. The rulings on the special demurrers, with one exception, were not error, and the error in overruling that demurrer became harmless when no evidence was submitted in support of the allegations against which it was directed.
3. The evidence supported the verdict and the trial judge did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.
Mrs. Lucy Chafin Johnson filed suit in Taliaferro Superior Court against Claude Lee Rogers claiming damages for the death of her husband, E. W. Johnson, as a result of the collision between an automobile owned by her husband and an automobile and house-trailer owned by the defendant.
The material allegations of the petition are: The plaintiff's suit is to recover the full value of the life of her husband, E. W. Johnson, whose death was caused by the negligence of the defendant, who is a resident of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, and was operating an automobile with house-trailer attached on the public highways of Georgia at the time of the collision with an automobile belonging to the plaintiff's husband. On January 23, 1953, about 10:30 p. m., the plaintiff's husband was riding in his said automobile which was being operated by Burl Johnson, Jr., at a speed of approximately 40 miles per hour in a westerly direction on U. S. Highway No. 78, traveling towards the City of Washington, Wilkes County, Georgia, on his right-hand of the center line of said highway. The defendant was driving his automobile on said highway in an easterly direction traveling towards the City of Thomson, McDuffie County, Georgia. 'When plaintiff's husband's said automobile reached a point on the right-hand side of said highway, approximately 75 feet from the automobile being operated by the defendant, which had attached thereto a house-trailer of approximately 32 feet in length, defendant had the highway practically blocked and completely blocked to all approaching traffic moving in an opposite direction from which defendant was traveling; that defendant's automobile was approximately 16 feet in length, and together with the trailer attached thereto made a total length of approximately 48 feet; that the highway at this point had a width of 20 feet with shoulders of 6 feet; that defendant was traveling in an easterly direction, and turned his automobile and trailer to the left in order to get to a filling station on the left-hand side of the highway, and in doing so completely blocked the highway to plaintiff and all traffic approaching from the opposite direction of defendant.
The plaintiff's husband suffered a broken neck from the collision, from which he died a few days thereafter 'solely by and through the negligence of the defendant such negligence of the defendant being as follows: (a) In driving his automobile with the long house-trailer attached thereto to the left-hand side of the highway, across said highway, entirely blocking all traffic approaching from the opposite direction. (b) In failing to have any lights on his car or trailer that would be visible to approaching traffic. (c) In failing to keep a lookout ahead in the direction of travel of cars approaching from the opposite direction, and in failing to observe and heed the highway and traffic conditions. (d) And in failing and refusing to take any reasonable precautions and in failing to exercise any degree of care or diligence to protect other persons traveling on the highway, while driving his automobile and house-trailer from the right-hand side of said highway to the left thereof, entirely blocking said highway as to all traffic approaching from the opposite direction.
'These acts, plaintiff alleges, constituted extreme carelessness and gross negligence on the part of the defendant.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Code, § 68-803 plaintiff elected to bring this action in the county of her residence.
The defendant demurred generally to the petition on the ground that it set forth no cause of action against him. The defendant also demurred specially to subparagraph (a) of paragraph 16 of the petition on the ground that 'no act of negligence by this defendant is alleged in said paragraph, there being no law prohibiting defendant from driving across said highway.' The defendant also filed his answer to the petition, in which he denied that the collision was caused by his negligence and alleged that by the exercise of ordinary care said Burl Johnson, Jr., could have avoided colliding with the defendant's vehicle and that said collision was caused by the negligence of the agent and driver of the plaintiff's husband. The defendant's demurrers to the plaintiff's petition were overruled and the case proceeded to trial.
Dr. Morgan Charles Adair testified for the plaintiff that he treated her husband in Washington, Georgia, for injuries which he received in a wreck on January 23, 1953; that he had a fracture, a dislocation of the fifth cervical vertebra, and was completely paralyzed from the neck down; and that his death certificate, signed by Dr. Louis O. Manganiello, showed the cause of his death to have been excessive temperature with the contributing cause due to a fracture, dislocation of the cervical vertebra with quadrophlegia and cord compression, and complete paralysis of all four extremities.
Burl Johnson, Jr., testified for the plaintiff that he was in the U. S. Army on January 23, 1953, and was visiting his folks in Crawfordville, Georgia. He also testified as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Floyd v. Colonial Stores, Inc.
...if neither whether there was a question for the jury. Defendants cite Pollard v. Roberson, 61 Ga.App. 465, 6 S.E.2d 203, Rogers v. Johnson, 94 Ga.App. 666, 96 S.E.2d 285, and Morris v. Cochran, 98 Ga.App. 786, 106 S.E.2d 836, for the proposition that if the owner of a vehicle is present in ......
-
Stone Mountain Mem'l Ass'n v. Amestoy
...obstruction was unlighted, obscured from plaintiff's vision by its placement, and could not be seen until within 10 feet); Rogers v. Johnson , 94 Ga.App. 666, 666 (syllabus), 677(1), 678(3), 96 S.E.2d 285 (1956) (sustaining verdict for plaintiff when decedent was traveling roadway at night ......
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Brower, 39287
...supra), present the earlier line of authority and the rule which is followed in this State. The rule was laid to rest in Rogers v. Johnson, 94 Ga.App. 666, 96 S.E.2d 285, and will be followed by this Another basis of this special ground is that the court failed to adequately charge upon thi......
-
Thomas v. Barnett
...Ga.App. 574, 186 S.E. 711), (a rule, the soundness of which, as thus broadly stated, has been drawn in question, see Rogers v. Johnson, 94 Ga.App. 666, 678, 96 S.E.2d 285, and we might add, it would seem, misinterpreted), this rule does not mean that the jury would not be authorized to find......