Colbert v. Wingo
This text of 233 S.E.2d 873 (Colbert v. Wingo) 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.
Opinion
This was a negligence case in which Otis Colbert sued Don Wingo seeking compensation for injuries sustained when Wingo’s automobile hit eleven-year-old Colbert as he and two companions rode their bicycles on a public highway. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Wingo. Colbert’s appeal argues the trial court erred by charging on the emergency doctrine and contributory and comparative negligence. We affirm.
1. This is not a case such as Davis v. Calhoun, 128 Ga. App. 104 (195 SE2d 759), where the emergency doctrine was inapplicable as a matter of law. Evidence that Colbert bumped a companion’s bicycle and suddenly veered into the path of Wingo’s oncoming automobile was sufficient to justify a charge on emergency. There was [518]*518evidence that Wingo may have contributed to the emergency by too swiftly approaching the three cyclists. The trial court properly charged that if he so contributed the doctrine would not apply. The charge clearly set forth the applicability and operation of the doctrine (Ware v. Alston, 112 Ga. App. 627 (145 SE2d 721)) and left the factual determinations for the jury.
2. The charge on contributory and comparative negligence was authorized by the evidence, correctly stated the law, and properly included consideration of the degree of care imposed on a child of tender years.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
233 S.E.2d 873, 141 Ga. App. 517, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 1971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colbert-v-wingo-gactapp-1977.