Broadnax v. Nunn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Broadnax v. Nunn

104 S.E.2d 553, 97 Ga. App. 864, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 903

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 23, 1958

Docket37164

StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.E.2d 553 (Broadnax v. Nunn) 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

Broadnax v. Nunn, 104 S.E.2d 553, 97 Ga. App. 864, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 903 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

Counsel for the defendant insists that the petition fails to show that the defendant violated any legal duty he owed the plaintiff, and the judge erred in not sustaining the general demurrer. The petition alleged: that the plaintiff stopped and ascertained that Highway No. 102 was clear of traffic and then proceeded to cross the same; that the defendant, driving at a high and dangerous rate of speed struck the plaintiff’s vehicle [866]*866after the larger portion of it had crossed the center line; that the collision was due to the defendant’s negligence in failing to keep his automobile under proper' control. While the petition may have been subject to special demurrer, as against a general demurrer, it set forth facts sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the defendant negligently failed to keep his automobile under proper control and whether this negligence was the proximate, cause of the collision. Southeastern Express Co. v. Nightingale, 33 Ga. App. 515 (3) (126 S. E. 915); Atlantic Co. v. Jones, 86 Ga. App. 515, 521 (71 S. E. 2d 824).

While it is true the defendant was traveling an upgrade and would not have- been able to see the' plaintiff until he reached the crossing, this did not relieve the defendant of the duty to kéép his vehicle under proper control at all times. Code (Ann.) § 68-1626 (a, c). ■ ■ ■

The judge did'not err in. overruling the general'demurrer to the petition. ■'

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

Counsel for the defendant insists that the petition fails to show that the defendant violated any legal duty he owed the plaintiff, and the judge erred in not sustaining the general demurrer. The petition alleged: that the plaintiff stopped and ascertained that Highway No. 102 was clear of traffic and then proceeded to cross the same; that the defendant, driving at a high and dangerous rate of speed struck the plaintiff’s vehicle [866]*866after the larger portion of it had crossed the center line; that the collision was due to the defendant’s negligence in failing to keep his automobile under proper' control. While the petition may have been subject to special demurrer, as against a general demurrer, it set forth facts sufficient to present a jury question as to whether the defendant negligently failed to keep his automobile under proper control and whether this negligence was the proximate, cause of the collision. Southeastern Express Co. v. Nightingale, 33 Ga. App. 515 (3) (126 S. E. 915); Atlantic Co. v. Jones, 86 Ga. App. 515, 521 (71 S. E. 2d 824).

While it is true the defendant was traveling an upgrade and would not have- been able to see the' plaintiff until he reached the crossing, this did not relieve the defendant of the duty to kéép his vehicle under proper control at all times. Code (Ann.) § 68-1626 (a, c). ■ ■ ■

The judge did'not err in. overruling the general'demurrer to the petition. ■'

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E.2d 553, 97 Ga. App. 864, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadnax-v-nunn-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack