Battey v. Savannah Transit Authority

182 S.E.2d 129, 123 Ga. App. 685, 52 A.L.R. 3d 662, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1348
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 23, 1971
Docket46038
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 182 S.E.2d 129 (Battey v. Savannah Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Battey v. Savannah Transit Authority, 182 S.E.2d 129, 123 Ga. App. 685, 52 A.L.R. 3d 662, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1348 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Opinions

Quillian, Judge.

1. The plaintiff contends that it was a question for the jury whether the defendant bus company was negligent in failing to have the driver of the bus have periodic medical examinations. The plaintiff further contends that, if the driver had been examined, his condition would have been revealed.

However, the stipulated facts show that the doctor who examined the driver in July 1965 testified: that at that time the driver’s blood pressure was moderately elevated; that his high blood pressure was of such a nature that it responded to drug therapy; that you would not normally expect a person with moderately high blood pressure to have a sudden fainting spell and would not warn the patient as to this possibility.

The doctor who examined the driver immediately after the collision testified that if he had examined the driver prior to the accident and found his blood pressure at the high level at which he observed it shortly after the collision, he would have recommended that he stop driving his bus until his blood pressure could be brought back down to acceptable limits through drug therapy.

Since the driver was not examined shortly before the collision [688]*688there was no evidence as to what such an examination would have shown and any opinion as to what it would have revealed would be pure speculation.

There was no evidence that the defendant bus company had any knowledge of the driver’s high blood pressure. Even if this court were to hold that it was the defendant bus company’s duty to provide the bus driver with a medical examination, there was no showing in the case sub judice that had such an examination been made the defendant bus company would have anticipated the attack. Lucas v. City of Juneau, 168 F Supp. 195. The direction of a verdict for the defendant bus company was not error.

2. The plaintiff also contends that the defendant Fields, the bus driver, was negligent in failing to inform the bus company of his condition. With this contention we cannot agree. The facts show that Fields had moderately elevated blood pressure and the doctor testified that the condition would not normally be expected to cause a sudden fainting spell and that he would not warn the patient as to that possibility.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., Jordan, P. J., Hall, P. J., Eberhardt, Pannell, Deen and Whitman, JJ., concur. Evans, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lewis v. Smith
517 S.E.2d 538 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1999)
Langston v. Allen
493 S.E.2d 401 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Walker v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
487 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Battey v. Savannah Transit Authority
182 S.E.2d 129 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 S.E.2d 129, 123 Ga. App. 685, 52 A.L.R. 3d 662, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battey-v-savannah-transit-authority-gactapp-1971.