Rowe v. Camp
| Decision Date | 26 September 1932 |
| Docket Number | 21864. |
| Citation | 165 S.E. 894,45 Ga.App. 794 |
| Parties | ROWE v. CAMP. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
In injured automobile guest's action against owner allegations of petition held to authorize inference of gross negligence in operation of automobile by defendant's wife.
Negligence and diligence, even gross negligence and slight diligence are generally determined by jury, except in indisputable cases.
Automobile guest's petition in action against owner for injuries sustained when automobile overturned held sufficient as against general and special demurrers.
1. Questions of negligence and diligence, even of gross negligence and slight diligence, are as a rule to be determined by a jury, and should not be settled by the court as a matter of law, except in plain and indisputable cases. Rosenhoff v. Schaul, 42 Ga.App. 776, 157 S.E. 215.
2. In this suit to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while riding as a guest in the defendant's automobile, this court, upon a consideration of all the facts alleged, taken collectively and as a whole cannot say as a matter of law that an inference of gross negligence on the part of the defendant and his wife, who was driving the automobile at his direction at the time of the injury, would not be authorized. Ætna Life Ins. Co. v Carroll, 169 Ga. 833, 150 S.E. 208; Pickleseimer v Duke, 41 Ga.App. 614, 154 S.E. 457; McDuffie v. Childs, 43 Ga.App. 37, 157 S.E. 900; Pitcher v. Curtis, 43 Ga.App. 622, 159 S.E. 783; West v. Rosenberg, 44 Ga.App. 211, 160 S.E. 808; Smith v. Hodges, 44 Ga.App. 318, 161 S.E. 284; Manning v. Simpson, 261 Mass. 494, 159 N.E. 440.
3. The petition stated a cause of action, and was not subject to any ground of the demurrer interposed.
Error from Superior Court, De Kalb County; John B. Hutcheson, Judge.
Action by Mrs. G. B. Camp against D. L. Rowe. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Slaton & Hopkins, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. H. Mewbourne and Scott Candler, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
SUTTON, J. (after stating the foregoing facts).
Even eliminating the fact that the defendant went to sleep after permitting his wife to assume control of the vehicle, and treating the case as if the defendant had remained at home and intrusted the car exclusively to his wife, we are of the opinion that the allegations with respect to her own conduct while driving as the defendant's agent would, if established by evidence, be sufficient to justify an inference of gross negligence on her...
To continue reading
Request your trial