Sheppard v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 02 July 1912
• Docket Number: 4,148.
• Citation: 75 S.E. 348,11 Ga.App. 280
• Parties: SHEPPARD v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

75 S.E. 348

11 Ga.App. 280

SHEPPARD v. JOHNSON.

No. 4,148.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

July 2, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

In view of the provisions of section 4 of the act approved August 13 1910 (Acts 1910, p. 91), regulating the use of automobiles it is negligence per se to operate an automobile along one of the public highways of this state from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise without having displayed on the front of the machine at least one white light, throwing a light at least 100 feet in the direction in which the machine is going. The evidence in the present case authorized a finding that the defendant was negligent in failing to display upon his machine such a light as that described in the act of 1910, and that this omission of duty contributed to the plaintiff's injury. The evidence also authorized a finding that the plaintiff could not, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence after the same became apparent to her. While the evidence preponderated in favor of the defendant upon the question of negligence, there was some evidence to authorize a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and, no errors of law having been committed, this court is without power to set aside the verdict.

Error from City Court of Sandersville; E. W. Jordan, Judge.

Action by C. T. A. Johnson against W. H. Sheppard. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Evans & Evans, of Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.

Gross & Swint, of Sandersville, for defendant in error.

POTTLE J. (after stating the facts as above).

The only question presented for decision is whether or not the verdict in the plaintiff's favor was supported by the evidence. There was no presumption of negligence against the defendant, and consequently the burden was on the plaintiff not only to prove injury as alleged, but to prove that the defendant was guilty of some one or more acts of negligence set forth in the petition, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury received by the plaintiff. By the act approved August 13, 1910, it is provided that from one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise there shall be displayed on the front of every automobile and machine of like character, while being operated on or along any of the public highways of the state, at least one white light, throwing a bright light at least 100 feet in the direction in which the machine is going, and also on the rear of each machine at least one red light, which shall effectually illuminate the number tag on the rear. The act further provides, in section 5, that no person shall operate a machine on one of the highways of this state described in the act "at a rate of speed greater than is reasonable and proper, having regard to the traffic and use of such highway, or so as to endanger the life or limb of any person or the safety of any property, and upon approaching a bridge, dam, high embankment, sharp curve, descent, or crossing of intersecting highways and railroad crossings, the person operating a machine shall have it under control and operate it at a speed not greater than six miles per hour." A further provision in the act is that, on approaching pedestrians or persons operating other vehicles on the highway, the driver of the automobile "shall give reasonable warning of its approach by the use of a bell, horn, gong, or other signal, and use every reasonable precaution to insure the safety of such person or animal." Acts 1910, p. 92.

Under the provisions of this act it is negligence per se for one to drive an automobile along one of the public highways of this state without displaying at least one white light, of the character described in the act, in front of the machine. It is also negligence per se to approach a public road crossing at a speed greater than six miles per hour, or to approach any person on the highway without giving reasonable warning of the approach by the use of a bell, horn, gong, or other signal. If an automobile collide with a person on one of the public highways of this state in the nighttime, without having displayed in front of the machine such a light as is described in the act above cited, and injury result to him, he would be entitled to recover, unless he could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence after he became...