Toles v. Hair, 33300
| Decision Date | 09 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 33300,33300,1 |
| Parties | TOLES v. HAIR et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
T. J. Espy, Jr., Summerville, Maddox & Maddox, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Brinson & Davis, Summerville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Where the plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that collided with a truck being driven by one of the defendants and the evidence did not disclose that plaintiff was in any way negligent and did not show that the driver of the automobile was the agent of or under the control of the plaintiff, it was error for the court to charge that a duty was upon the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care to avoid the consequence of defendants' negligence, if any, and that if she failed to do so there could be no recovery. Bellamy v. Georgia Power Company, 67 Ga.App. 569, 21 S.E.2d 294; Kuttner v. Swanson, 59 Ga.App. 818, 821(3), 2 S.E.2d 230.
2. Where the evidence plainly shows that the injuries of the plaintiff were due exclusively to the negligence of defendant truck driver, or of the driver of the automobile, or of both, it was error for the court to charge the law of accident. Morrow v. Southeastern Stages, Inc., 68 Ga.App. 142, 146, 22 S.E.2d 336.
3. The assignment of error complaining of the failure of the court to charge, in charging Code, § 38-107, that the jury might consider the witnesses' personal credibility so far as the same might legitimately appear from the trial will not be passed on as the omission to so charge will not likely occur on a new trial.
4. The assignment of error complaining of insufficiency of the verdict will not be passed on as a new trial is granted no other grounds.
The court erred in overruling the amended motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stanfield v. Smith
...the court to charge the law of accident," citing Morrow v. Southeastern Stages, 68 Ga.App. 142(1), 22 S.E.2d 336, supra; Toles v. Hair, 83 Ga.App. 144(2), 63 S.E.2d 3; and Bush v. Skelton, 91 Ga.App. 83, 84 S.E.2d 835. The court there stated: "The injection by the court of the theory of acc......
-
Chadwick v. Miller, 66461
...injurious event was the proximate result of the negligence of someone other than the defendant in the suit. See also Toles v. Hair, 83 Ga.App. 144(2), 63 S.E.2d 3 (1951). In direct contrast to Morrow and Toles, there are cases which, although recognizing the strict definition of accident, h......
-
Hanson v. Waller
...on that defense is error. (emphasis in original) (citing Morrow v. Southeastern Stages , 22 S.E.2d 336 (Ga.App.1942); Toles v. Hair , 63 S.E.2d 3 (Ga.App.1951) (adopting definition of accident applied by the Georgia Supreme Court in Everett v. Clegg , 97 S.E.2d 689 (Ga.App.1957)). Under Geo......
-
Durden v. Collins
...the strict definition applied in such cases as Morrow v. Southeastern Stages, 68 Ga.App. 142, 22 S.E.2d 336 (1942) and Toles v. Hair, 83 Ga.App. 144, 63 S.E.2d 3 (1951). Because the instant case falls within the ambit of the rulings in Morrow and Toles, I concur with the result reached in t......