Bowe v. Bell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bowe v. Bell

189 S.E. 269, 54 Ga. App. 829, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 770

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1936

Docket25744, 25745

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 269 (Bowe v. Bell) 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

Bowe v. Bell, 189 S.E. 269, 54 Ga. App. 829, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 770 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

It was not error to overrule tile demurrers to the petitions of an automobile driver and of his guest against a contractor constructing a highway, although it appears that the driver knew that the road was under construction, where it also appears that the road was not closed to traffic; that while the plaintiffs were traveling at about thirty miles an hour, the temporary obstruction causing the injury, and consisting of brush piled about four feet high in the middle of the road, suddenly became visible to the plaintiffs as they passed over a rise in the highway; and that no warning sign or signal was placed or given so as to protect travelers using the highway from the danger occasioned by such temporary obstruction. Under these alleged facts and circumstances, it can not be held as a matter of law that the injury was occasioned by a want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiffs; but the questions of what and whose negligence contributed to the injury were properly held to be for the jury. Williams v. Evans, 50 Ga. App. 496 (178 S. E. 460) ; MacDougald Construction Co. v. Mewborn, 34 Ga. App. 333 (129 S. E. 917) ; Hansberger Motor Transportation Co. v. Pate, 51 Ga. App. 877 (181 S. E. 796) ; S. C. Jones Co. v. Yawn, 54 Ga. App. 826 (189 S. E. ) ; Laseter v. Clark, 54 Ga. App. 669 (189 S. E. 265) ; and cit.

Judgments affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. Bussey •& Fulcher, for plaintiff in error. Frwin, Frwin & Nix, Lamar C. Bucher, Lee, Gongdon & Fulcher, contra.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

It was not error to overrule tile demurrers to the petitions of an automobile driver and of his guest against a contractor constructing a highway, although it appears that the driver knew that the road was under construction, where it also appears that the road was not closed to traffic; that while the plaintiffs were traveling at about thirty miles an hour, the temporary obstruction causing the injury, and consisting of brush piled about four feet high in the middle of the road, suddenly became visible to the plaintiffs as they passed over a rise in the highway; and that no warning sign or signal was placed or given so as to protect travelers using the highway from the danger occasioned by such temporary obstruction. Under these alleged facts and circumstances, it can not be held as a matter of law that the injury was occasioned by a want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiffs; but the questions of what and whose negligence contributed to the injury were properly held to be for the jury. Williams v. Evans, 50 Ga. App. 496 (178 S. E. 460) ; MacDougald Construction Co. v. Mewborn, 34 Ga. App. 333 (129 S. E. 917) ; Hansberger Motor Transportation Co. v. Pate, 51 Ga. App. 877 (181 S. E. 796) ; S. C. Jones Co. v. Yawn, 54 Ga. App. 826 (189 S. E. ) ; Laseter v. Clark, 54 Ga. App. 669 (189 S. E. 265) ; and cit.

Judgments affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. Bussey •& Fulcher, for plaintiff in error. Frwin, Frwin & Nix, Lamar C. Bucher, Lee, Gongdon & Fulcher, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 269, 54 Ga. App. 829, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowe-v-bell-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack