Russell v. Goza
| Decision Date | 11 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 54427,54427,2 |
| Citation | 143 Ga.App. 455,238 S.E.2d 583 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Joyce L. RUSSELL v. Madeline S. GOZA et al |
Lokey & Bowden, Hamilton Lokey, Gerald F. Handley, Atlanta, for appellant.
Henning, Chambers & Mabry, Eugene P. Chambers, Jr., Rex D. Smith, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellant's six-year-old daughter died one day after she was injured by a car driven by appellee. This appeal follows the action of the trial judge in directing a verdict in favor of defendants/appellees, at the conclusion of plaintiff's/appellant's case.
Jenkins v. Gulf States Mtg. Co., 138 Ga.App. 835, 837, 227 S.E.2d 522, 523. See generally Trotter v. Peet, 135 Ga.App. 580, 218 S.E.2d 295.
Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs/appellants, the evidence shows that plaintiff's six-year-old daughter, Margaret, was struck by defendant's car. Defendant was following a car containing Margaret which pulled to the curb and stopped. Defendant slowed her vehicle and attempted to go around the other car. She did not sound her horn when passing. In passing, defendant entered the opposite lane of traffic and concentrated on the hill crest to sight on-coming traffic. As she proceeded around the automobile at about 10-15 mph, defendant heard a scream. She applied her brakes and stopped. Margaret was found lying under defendant's car, her side and arm against the rear right wheel. Forty to fifty percent of Margaret's body was under the car, her head being the furthermost portion of her body under the car. Defendant did not see Margaret prior to impact. There were no structures or weather conditions which prevented an unobstructed view.
The mishap occurred in a residential neighborhood at a time when children ordinarily returned home from school. Defendant was aware that children were walking home from school and that people in the neighborhood were bringing children home from school in their automobiles. She had, in fact, picked up her own child from school shortly before the tragedy.
Unless no other conclusion is permissible, questions of negligence are matters for jury resolution and are not ordinarily susceptible to summary adjudication. Dublin Country Club v. Griffith, 142 Ga.App. 391, 236 S.E.2d 137.
The evidence does not demand a finding that as a matter of law no actionable negligence appears. Anderson v. Happ, 136 Ga.App. 839(2), 222 S.E.2d 607; Smith v. Kleinberg, 49 Ga.App. 194, 174 S.E. 731; Christian v. Smith, 78 Ga.App. 603(...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Begin v. Georgia Championship Wrestling, Inc.
...286, 145 S.E.2d 101. The evidence does not demand a finding as a matter of law that no actionable negligence appears. Russell v. Goza, 143 Ga.App. 455, 456, 238 S.E.2d 583. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Judgment reversed. BIRDSONG and CARLEY, JJ., concur. ...
-
Jet Food Stores, Inc. v. Kicklighter
...the evidence in the record does not require a finding as a matter of law that no actionable negligence occurred. Russell v. Goza, 143 Ga.App. 455, 456(1), 238 S.E.2d 583 (1977). 2. Jet contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict because it satisfied the ap......
-
Cowart v. Five Star Mobile Homes, Inc., 62852
...Ga. 235, 237, 227 S.E.2d 336. "Unless no other conclusion is permissible" such issues should be resolved by a jury. Russell v. Goza, 143 Ga.App. 455, 456, 238 S.E.2d 583; Epps Air Service v. DeKalb County, 147 Ga.App. 195(1), 248 S.E.2d There is no dispute as to the salient facts in the ins......
-
Shannon v. Walt Disney Productions, Inc.
...of negligence are matters for jury resolution and are not ordinarily susceptible to summary adjudication." Russell v. Goza, 143 Ga.App. 455, 456, 238 S.E.2d 583 (1977). 2. Appellees argue that a negligence action cannot be sustained because, as a matter of law, 1) the airing of the program ......