Walls v. Parker
Decision Date | 28 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 55962,55962 |
Citation | 247 S.E.2d 556,146 Ga.App. 882 |
Parties | WALLS et al. v. PARKER et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Frank M. Eldridge, Decatur, George B. Hooks, Atlanta, for appellants.
John F. Davis, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.
This joint suit arises from a rear-end automobile collision. Plaintiffs are husband and wife; the wife-driver claimed damages for pain and suffering whereas the husband claimed property damage to his car, his wife's medical expenses, and damages for loss of consortium. The defendants are the father, owner of a family purpose car, and minor son, who was the driver. The evidence adduced at trial showed without dispute that plaintiff-driver approached an intersection, signaled her intent to turn right, and gradually came to a stop in the right turn lane at a yield sign, as there was approaching traffic on the intersecting highway. Defendant-driver was following plaintiffs' car and stopped behind the vehicle. While defendant-driver was looking to his left at the approaching traffic, he took his foot off the brake and allowed the car to roll forward. Defendant driver testified that he believed plaintiffs' vehicle had entered the highway because he thought he heard an engine "rev up," but he did not look forward to see if it had moved. Consequently, defendants' car drove into the rear of plaintiffs' vehicle, which in fact had not moved. Defendants' cross examination of plaintiffs' witnesses revealed that plaintiff-driver had suffered a previous accident and had undergone an operation and chiropractic treatment prior to the incident in question, in addition to performing strenuous employment duties subsequently to this incident. The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial. Held :
1. We recognize that generally, the issue of liability in rear-end collision cases is for jury determination. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jones, 236 Ga. 448, 224 S.E.2d 25. However, this case is one of those rare instances where there is no dispute as to the pertinent facts. Although there is some conflict as to the degree of impact, defendant-driver admitted that he was not looking ahead when he let his foot off the brake and rolled into plaintiffs' vehicle. This testimony amounted to a confession of liability. This failure to keep a proper lookout and taking his foot off the brake was clearly, plainly and undisputedly negligence as a matter of law.
2. The inquiry does not end with the determination of defendants' negligence, however. Defendants are liable only if their negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiffs' injuries and damages. Rhodes v. Levitz Furniture Co., 136 Ga.App. 514, 221 S.E.2d 687. The jury was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collins v. Davis
...did not, contrary to appellant-plaintiffs, imply the plaintiffs had liability insurance; however, Cannon (and see Walls v. Parker, 146 Ga.App. 882, 247 S.E.2d 556) was decided before our decisions in Moore and Goins, in which we held such a charge to be error. We conclude from this that the......
-
Hill v. Nelson, 81-7607
...judges are normally required to instruct the jury to disregard the evidence in determining damages. Id.; see also Walls v. Parker, 146 Ga.App. 882, 247 S.E.2d 556, 557 (1978).8 Plaintiff seeks to distinguish Levine v. Wyatt, supra, by noting that the stipulation in the instant case was file......
-
Daves v. Davidson
...cases Daves cites in support of his motion for directed verdict, Nail v. Green, 147 Ga.App. 660, 249 S.E.2d 666; Walls v. Parker, 146 Ga.App. 882(1), 247 S.E.2d 556; and Johnson v. Curenton, 127 Ga.App. 687, 688-689, 195 S.E.2d 279, are not controlling in the case sub judice because the def......
- Speir v. Williams