Blackwell v. Southland Butane Gas Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blackwell v. Southland Butane Gas Co.

93 S.E.2d 833, 94 Ga. App. 128, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 484

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 2, 1956

Docket36248

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E.2d 833 (Blackwell v. Southland Butane Gas Co.) 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

Blackwell v. Southland Butane Gas Co., 93 S.E.2d 833, 94 Ga. App. 128, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 484 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, P. J.

It is contended by the defendant that the petition was duplicitous. The petition, as amended, is not duplicitous. The petition, as amended, did not set out a new cause of action. In Foster v. Southern Ry. Co., 42 Ga. App. 830 (2) (157 S. E. 371), this court said: “A complaint for damages for homi *130 cide, which charges simple negligence only, may be amended by adding a new count alleging that the homicide was the result of wilfulness or wantonness on the part of the defendant.” Counsel also cites Bozikis v. Kolgaklis, 52 Ga. App. 804 (184 S. E. 764) and Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Willett, 89 Ga. App. 712 (80 S. E. 2d 849). In support of this contention counsel cites Buffington v. Atlanta, B. & C. R. Co., 47 Ga. App. 85 (169 S. E. 756). The facts in that case show that the pleadings were duplicitous but not so in the instant case. We have read with particular care Georgia Power Co. v. Deese, 78 Ga. App. 704 (51 S. E. 2d 724). A careful comparison of the facts in that case with the facts in the instant case shows that that case is not authority for affirmance of the instant case.

Regarding count 4, under the allegations thereof, there are no facts alleged which, under the law, would require the operator of the truck to anticipate that anyone would be lying on the highway, as the deceased was alleged to be, in the darkness of the night. It is our opinion that to hold that such should be anticipated would be dangerous to users of the highway.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the original petition. The court also erred in sustaining the demurrers to count 3 of the petition. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrers to count 4 of the petition.

Judgment affirmed in paft and reversed in part.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, P. J.

It is contended by the defendant that the petition was duplicitous. The petition, as amended, is not duplicitous. The petition, as amended, did not set out a new cause of action. In Foster v. Southern Ry. Co., 42 Ga. App. 830 (2) (157 S. E. 371), this court said: “A complaint for damages for homi *130 cide, which charges simple negligence only, may be amended by adding a new count alleging that the homicide was the result of wilfulness or wantonness on the part of the defendant.” Counsel also cites Bozikis v. Kolgaklis, 52 Ga. App. 804 (184 S. E. 764) and Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Willett, 89 Ga. App. 712 (80 S. E. 2d 849). In support of this contention counsel cites Buffington v. Atlanta, B. & C. R. Co., 47 Ga. App. 85 (169 S. E. 756). The facts in that case show that the pleadings were duplicitous but not so in the instant case. We have read with particular care Georgia Power Co. v. Deese, 78 Ga. App. 704 (51 S. E. 2d 724). A careful comparison of the facts in that case with the facts in the instant case shows that that case is not authority for affirmance of the instant case.

Regarding count 4, under the allegations thereof, there are no facts alleged which, under the law, would require the operator of the truck to anticipate that anyone would be lying on the highway, as the deceased was alleged to be, in the darkness of the night. It is our opinion that to hold that such should be anticipated would be dangerous to users of the highway.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the original petition. The court also erred in sustaining the demurrers to count 3 of the petition. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrers to count 4 of the petition.

Judgment affirmed in paft and reversed in part.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E.2d 833, 94 Ga. App. 128, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwell-v-southland-butane-gas-co-gactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack