Tucker v. Star Laundry & Cleaners, Inc.
| Citation | 110 S.E.2d 416,100 Ga.App. 175 |
| Decision Date | 14 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | 37778,Nos. 37777,No. 1,s. 37777,1 |
| Parties | Gertrude O. TUCKER v. STAR LAUNDRY & CLEANERS, INC., et al. Pauline M. TUCKER v. STAR LAUNDRY & CLEANERS, INC., et al |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrers of Charles E. Harris and Star Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., and in dismissing the actions as to them for the reason that the negligence alleged against them in the petitions was as a matter of law not the proximate cause or a concurring proximate cause of the injuries complained of.
2. The court erred in sustaining the demurrers of W. R. West and in dismissing the actions as to him for the reason that the petitions alleged that the failure to exercise ordinary care by his son who was operating a family-purpose automobile was one of the proximate causes of the injuries suffered by both plaintiffs.
Case No. 37778 is one wherein Pauline Marie Tucker seeks to recover damages for injuries caused by the negligence of the defendants when she was operating her automobile on U. S. Highway No. 11 and Georgia Highway No. 58 four miles north of Trenton, Ga., in Dade County. Case No. 37777 is a similar action by Mrs. Gertrude O. Tucker, mother of Pauline Tucker, with whom the mother was riding as a passenger. The petitions allege substantially as follows: The defendants named are: James Vernon Dorsett, who was driving the automobile which struck from the rear the automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding; Charles E. Harris was the employee of Star Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., who operated a one-half ton panel Chevrolet truck and who stopped suddenly and without signal or warning as he permitted an unidentified vehicle to turn to the right ahead of him upon proper signals; Star Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., and W. R. West, the father of Edward Russell West, age 17 years, who was operating his father's family-purpose automobile on the other side of the highway from the plaintiffs in the opposite direction. On the date and at the time set forth in the petition four vehicles were proceeding northwardly along U. S. Highway No. 11 in Dade County, Georgia, in the east or right-hand lane of said highway, the front vehicle being an unidentified vehicle; the next in line being the truck of the defendant Star Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., driven by the defendant Charles E. Harris, an employee of said company; the next in line being the vehicle owned and operated by Pauline Tucker; and the last vehicle in this line being one owned and operated by the defendant James Vernon Dorsett, who is not a defendant in error in this court. At the same time and place the vehicle of the defendant W. R. West, being driven by his son, Edward Russell West, was proceeding southwardly along said highway in his right-hand or the west lane of said highway, at a speed of 65 miles an hour. Harris was following the unidentified vehicle an unspecified distance behind; Pauline Tucker was 100 feet behind Harris traveling at a speed of 20 miles an hour; Dorsett was 50 feet behind Tucker, traveling at a speed of 65 miles per hour. The driver of the unidentified vehicle gave a signal that he was going to make a right turn about 100 feet before he made the turn. Harris followed the unidentified vehicle, driving up within a few feet of it, and stopped to permit the unidentified vehicle to make its turn, without giving any signals. The driver of the Tucker car had time to and did give lawful stop signals, and brought her car to a stop behind Harris. In spite of the signals given by Pauline Tucker, Dorsett, who was driving so fast and in such a reckless manner, ran into the rear of the Tucker car; knocking the same forward with great force into the rear of the laundry truck, and then knocked it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aretz v. United States
...Levitz Furniture Company, 136 Ga.App. 514, 221 S.E.2d 687; Davis v. Aiken, 111 Ga.App. 505, 142 S.E.2d 112; Tucker v. Star Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., 100 Ga.App. 175, 110 S.E.2d 416. Under Georgia law, "proximate cause" is not the last act or cause or the nearest act to the injury. It is a n......
-
Perry v. Lyons
...v. Bailey, 122 Ga.App. 294, 176 S.E.2d 613. The cases of Millirons v. Blue, 48 Ga.App. 483, 173 S.E. 443; Tucker v. Star Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., 100 Ga.App. 175, 110 S.E.2d 416; and Hodge v. Dixon, 119 Ga.App. 397, 167 S.E.2d 377, do appear to be, in some degree and to some extent, at var......
-
Hodge v. Dixon, 43997
...Piller v. Hanger Cab Co., 115 Ga.App. 260, 154 S.E.2d 420; Millirons v. Blue, 48 Ga.App. 483, 173 S.E. 443; Tucker v. Star Laundry & Cleaners, 100 Ga.App. 175, 110 S.E.2d 416; Palmer v. Stevens, 115 Ga.App. 398, 154 S.E.2d 803; Benefield v. McDonough Const. Co. of Ga., 106 Ga.App. 194, 126 ......
-
G. & R. Waterproofing Co. v. Brogdon
...Light Co., 93 Ga.App. 766, 92 S.E.2d 709; Hulsey v. Atlanta Transit System, 98 Ga.App. 1, 104 S.E.2d 618; and Tucker v. Star Laundry & Cleaners, 100 Ga.App. 175, 100 S.E.2d 416, ar distinguished from the present case by their particular We are not here dealing with a situation where the inj......