Simpson Grocery Co. v. Holley
| Decision Date | 09 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | 24504. |
| Citation | 180 S.E. 501,51 Ga.App. 355 |
| Parties | SIMPSON GROCERY CO. v. HOLLEY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 15, 1935.
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Evidence that defendant's driver drove truck out of side road directly in front of plaintiff's automobile, without signaling or slowing down for main highway, although plaintiff's driver blew his horn and defendant's driver saw plaintiff's automobile approaching on main highway, authorized recovery, although defendant introduced evidence that plaintiff's automobile was being driven at rapid speed and ran into rear of defendant's truck when defendant's truck was already on main highway.
Verdict supported by any evidence and approved by trial judge cannot be set aside because of conflicting evidence or insufficiency of evidence.
In action arising out of collision between defendant's truck and plaintiff's automobile, failure to charge, without request, that motorist on right has right of way over motorist approaching from left held not to require new trial, after verdict for plaintiff, where defendant contended that truck had been proceeding ahead of automobile on same highway, and that automobile negligently ran into rear of truck.
In automobile accident case, where defendant introduced evidence, without objection, that its driver gave signal charge that defendant contended that its driver gave signal held not error, although question of signal was not raised by pleadings.
In automobile accident case, charge that defendant contended that defendant's truck was preceding plaintiff's automobile, and that there was sufficient space on either right or left side of truck for automobile to pass truck and avoid collision, held authorized by defendant's pleadings and evidence.
In automobile accident case, charge on rules governing passing of overtaken vehicle held applicable under evidence and defendant's answer.
Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; James Maddox, Judge.
Suit by J. W. Holley against the Simpson Grocery Company. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Maddox Matthews & Owens, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Porter & Mebane, of Rome, and Leonard Farkas & Walter H. Burt, of Albany, for defendant in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
Plaintiff's petition alleged that his automobile was damaged by reason of the negligence of the defendant's servant in the operation of its grocery delivery truck, which came out of a side road, not a public road or highway, into the Dixie Highway directly in front of plaintiff's on-coming automobile, which the driver of defendant's truck clearly saw, without slowing down or stopping, and thereby causing the collision and wrecking plaintiff's automobile. The defendant denied liability, and contended that its truck was not driven out of such side road, but was proceeding along the highway in front of plaintiff's automobile at a slow rate of speed, fixing to stop to make a delivery of groceries, when plaintiff's automobile, being driven at a high rate of speed, ran into the rear of the truck, and that the damage to plaintiff's automobile was caused by the negligence of the driver of the same and by his failure to exercise ordinary care to avoid the collision. No demurrer was filed. The trial resulted in a verdict in plaintiff's favor. The defendant moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled, and to it the movant excepted.
1. The evidence in this case was in sharp conflict as to the cause of the collision and the manner in which it occurred. Plaintiff's evidence was to the effect that defendant's truck was driven out of the side road directly in front of his automobile, without any signal or slowing down for the highway, although plaintiff's driver blew his horn, and although the driver of defendant's truck saw plaintiff's automobile approaching along the Dixie Highway. Defendant's evidence was to the effect that its truck was already proceeding along the highway on the right side of the road, that it was proceeding slowly fixing to stop and make a delivery of some groceries, and that plaintiff's car was being driven at a rapid rate of speed and ran into the rear of defendant's truck, thereby causing the collision and damaging plaintiff's automobile, when there was plenty of room in the highway for him to pass around defendant's truck. Under the evidence, though conflicting, the verdict in plaintiff's favor was authorized. In such circumstances, this court will not disturb the finding of the jury, based solely upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. "A verdict supported by any evidence and approved by the trial judge cannot be set aside by this court because of conflicting evidence or alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial