Dawson v. Bussey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dawson v. Bussey

159 S.E.2d 297, 117 Ga. App. 13, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1291

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1967

Docket43221

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 159 S.E.2d 297 (Dawson v. Bussey) 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

Dawson v. Bussey, 159 S.E.2d 297, 117 Ga. App. 13, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1291 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

The evidence did not authorize the finding that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damages suffered by the plaintiff or that it was a contributing proximate cause. Proof of this prerequisite was dependent solely on circumstantial evidence which did not exclude the hypothesis that the plaintiff’s negligence was the proximate cause. The facts are just as consistent with the defendant’s diligence as with his negligence. There is no explanation of why the plaintiff did not see the defendant sooner, and the circumstantial evidence supports the defendant’s estimate of his speed whereas [15]*15the circumstantial evidence does not support the plaintiff’s estimate of his speed. The physical facts show that the defendant was traveling at a very low rate of speed and that the plaintiff’s speed was much greater. The evidence fails to show affirmatively that the defendant did not stop at the intersection or- that he entered it while the plaintiff was approaching it so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard.

The court erred in overruling the defendant’s motions for a judgment n.o.v., and, in the alternative his motion for a new trial on the general grounds. The amended grounds of the motion for a new trial are not considered.

Judgments reversed, the former with direction.

Eberhardt, J., concurs. Hall, J., concurs in the judgment.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

The evidence did not authorize the finding that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of the damages suffered by the plaintiff or that it was a contributing proximate cause. Proof of this prerequisite was dependent solely on circumstantial evidence which did not exclude the hypothesis that the plaintiff’s negligence was the proximate cause. The facts are just as consistent with the defendant’s diligence as with his negligence. There is no explanation of why the plaintiff did not see the defendant sooner, and the circumstantial evidence supports the defendant’s estimate of his speed whereas [15]*15the circumstantial evidence does not support the plaintiff’s estimate of his speed. The physical facts show that the defendant was traveling at a very low rate of speed and that the plaintiff’s speed was much greater. The evidence fails to show affirmatively that the defendant did not stop at the intersection or- that he entered it while the plaintiff was approaching it so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard.

The court erred in overruling the defendant’s motions for a judgment n.o.v., and, in the alternative his motion for a new trial on the general grounds. The amended grounds of the motion for a new trial are not considered.

Judgments reversed, the former with direction.

Eberhardt, J., concurs. Hall, J., concurs in the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E.2d 297, 117 Ga. App. 13, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-bussey-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack