FARMERS MUTUAL EXCHANGE v. Milligan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

FARMERS MUTUAL EXCHANGE v. Milligan

274 S.E.2d 83, 156 Ga. App. 38, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2865

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 8, 1980

Docket60400

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 274 S.E.2d 83 (FARMERS MUTUAL EXCHANGE v. Milligan) 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

FARMERS MUTUAL EXCHANGE v. Milligan, 274 S.E.2d 83, 156 Ga. App. 38, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2865 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Shulman, Judge.

Defendants Farmers Mutual Exchange and Gold Kist, Inc., appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages for the injuries she sustained in a collision between her automobile and a train. We affirin.

*39 Submitted September 15, 1980 Decided October 8, 1980 O. Wayne Ellerbee, for appellants. Jack Friday, Charles Jones, William U. Norwood, for appellee.

It was plaintiffs contention at trial that box cars negligently placed by defendants on a side track, along with grain bins and metal buildings negligently erected by defendants adjacent to the main train track, obstructed her view of an oncoming train, resulting in her collision with that train. It is defendants’ contention on appeal that the evidence dictated the finding that plaintiff was, as a matter of law, contributorily negligent.

Defendants’ contentions notwithstanding, the fact that plaintiff may have crossed the track several times prior to the occurrence of the collision and that she may have been aware of the “obstruction” does not mandate the finding that she failed, as a matter of law, to exercise ordinary care in crossing the track. “ ‘Questions as to diligence and negligence, including contributory negligence, being questions peculiarly for the jury, the court will decline to solve them ... except in plain and indisputable cases.’ [Cit.]” Norton v. Georgia R. & Power Co., 28 Ga. App. 167 (110 SE 459). Where, as here, evidence was presented that plaintiff proceeded slowly to cross the tracks after stopping to look right and left, we refuse to hold as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent, inasmuch as it was not incumbent upon plaintiff to exercise that degree of care which would have absolutely prevented her injuries.

Nor do we find merit in defendants’ assertion that there was no evidence that the box cars and grain bins actually obstructed plaintiffs view, in light of plaintiffs testimony of just such fact.

This court having found no error for the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court entered in accordance with the jury award in favor of plaintiff is affirmed on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Shulman, Judge.

Defendants Farmers Mutual Exchange and Gold Kist, Inc., appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages for the injuries she sustained in a collision between her automobile and a train. We affirin.

*39 Submitted September 15, 1980 Decided October 8, 1980 O. Wayne Ellerbee, for appellants. Jack Friday, Charles Jones, William U. Norwood, for appellee.

It was plaintiffs contention at trial that box cars negligently placed by defendants on a side track, along with grain bins and metal buildings negligently erected by defendants adjacent to the main train track, obstructed her view of an oncoming train, resulting in her collision with that train. It is defendants’ contention on appeal that the evidence dictated the finding that plaintiff was, as a matter of law, contributorily negligent.

Defendants’ contentions notwithstanding, the fact that plaintiff may have crossed the track several times prior to the occurrence of the collision and that she may have been aware of the “obstruction” does not mandate the finding that she failed, as a matter of law, to exercise ordinary care in crossing the track. “ ‘Questions as to diligence and negligence, including contributory negligence, being questions peculiarly for the jury, the court will decline to solve them ... except in plain and indisputable cases.’ [Cit.]” Norton v. Georgia R. & Power Co., 28 Ga. App. 167 (110 SE 459). Where, as here, evidence was presented that plaintiff proceeded slowly to cross the tracks after stopping to look right and left, we refuse to hold as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent, inasmuch as it was not incumbent upon plaintiff to exercise that degree of care which would have absolutely prevented her injuries.

Nor do we find merit in defendants’ assertion that there was no evidence that the box cars and grain bins actually obstructed plaintiffs view, in light of plaintiffs testimony of just such fact.

This court having found no error for the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court entered in accordance with the jury award in favor of plaintiff is affirmed on appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 S.E.2d 83, 156 Ga. App. 38, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-mutual-exchange-v-milligan-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack