Usry v. Small
| Decision Date | 10 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | 38650,No. 2,Nos. 38649,s. 38649,2 |
| Parties | H. D. USRY v. Elizabeth R. SMALL, Administratrix. H. D. USRY v. Elizabeth R. SMALL |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, J. Walker Harper, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Cumming, Nixon, Eve, Waller & Capers, Henry P. Eve, Augusta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The plaintiff in these cases, suing in one in her representative capacity as administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband to recover funeral expenses, alleges simply that her husband, Mr. Small, was riding as a passenger in his automobile driven by another and proceeding in one direction along a divided highway; that the defendant was driving his automobile in the opposite direction along said highway when he lost control of the same and drove it across the median of the highway and through a cyclone fence causing it to be wrecked in a ditch; that in so crossing the highway it passed 10 feet behind Mr. Small's automobile, and that some object, either from the defendant's automobile or from the fence erected in the median, struck Mr. Small's car causing him to be frightened and greatly excited thereby; that his car was stopped and he engaged in strenuous efforts to rescue the defendant who was trapped in his automobile, flagged down another car to summon aid and some 45 minutes after the accident and while he was standing and talking to a deputy sheriff about the accident, Mr. Small dropped dead from a heart attack. The defendant was alleged to have been guilty of negligence in operating his automobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor; in operating it over and across the median and through a cyclone fence which constituted a barrier between the two halves of the divided roadway; in failing to keep his automobile under control and in operating it in disregard for the rights and safety of others. Count 1 of each petition seeks to recover on the theory of injury and death resulting from an effort to rescue the defendant from the results of his negligence, and as against a general demurrer it stated a cause of action. Blanchard v. Reliable Transfer Co., 71 Ga.App. 843(1), 32 S.E.2d 420; Rushton v. Howle, 79 Ga.App. 360, 53 S.E.2d 768; George A. Fuller Const. Co. v. Elliott, 92 Ga.App. 309, 316(2), 88 S.E.2d 413. When the defendant operated his automobile in the manner alleged he was bound to anticipate that, if he wrecked his car, others would attempt to rescue him from it. It cannot be said as a matter of law that, because some 45 minutes intervened between the occurrence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears v. Morrison
...260, 296 N.Y.S.2d 322, 244 N.E.2d 26, 28 ("the doctrine has been expanded to encompass a two-party situation"); Usry v. Small (1961) 103 Ga.App. 144, 145, 118 S.E.2d 719, 720 ("When the defendant operated his automobile in the manner alleged he was bound to anticipate that, if he wrecked hi......
-
Heck v. Robey
...(Mo.1985) (quoting F. Bohlen, Studies in the Law of Torts, 569 n. 33 (1926)) (alterations in original); see also Usry v. Small, 103 Ga.App. 144, 118 S.E.2d 719, 720 (1961); Brugh v. Bigelow, 310 Mich. 74, 16 N.W.2d 668, 671 (1944); Provenzo v. Sam, 23 N.Y.2d 256, 296 N.Y.S.2d 322, 325, 244 ......
-
Sears v. Morrison
...Lowrey]; Provenzo v. Sam (1968) 23 N.Y.2d 256, 260 ["the doctrine has been expanded to encompass a two-party situation"]; Usry v. Small (1961) 103 Ga.App. 144, 145 ["When the defendant operated his automobile in the manner alleged he was bound to anticipate that, if he wrecked his car, othe......
-
Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Dade County Public Health Trust
...proximate cause requirement); Orlo v. Connecticut Co., 128 Conn. 231, 21 A.2d 402 (1941) (requiring proximate cause); Usry v. Small, 103 Ga.App. 144, 118 S.E.2d 719 (1961) (adopting the physical injury and proximate cause requirements). Although this Court has re-examined the rule numerous ......