Godwin v. Auto-Owners Insurance

357 S.E.2d 308, 182 Ga. App. 856, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1837
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 13, 1987
Docket74631
StatusPublished

This text of 357 S.E.2d 308 (Godwin v. Auto-Owners Insurance) 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
Godwin v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 357 S.E.2d 308, 182 Ga. App. 856, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1837 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

The appellant’s son was injured when a Honda three-wheeler motor vehicle, on which he was a passenger, was struck by a pickup truck. The appellee, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, insured the pickup truck, providing basic no-fault benefits. The appellant commenced this action against Auto-Owners, asserting a claim for her son’s injuries on the basis that he was a pedestrian. The trial court granted summary judgment for Auto-Owners, concluding that the appellant’s son was occupying a motorcycle and thus not entitled to no-fault benefits as a pedestrian. This appeal followed. Held:

OCGA § 33-34-2 (11) defines pedestrian as “any person not occupying a motor vehicle or a motorcycle or any other motor driven vehicle designed primarily for operation upon the public streets, roads, and highways or not in or upon a vehicle operated on stationary rails or tracks or not in or upon any aircraft.” OCGA § 40-1-1 (25) defines motorcycle as “every motor vehicle having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, but excluding a tractor and moped.” This court has previously classified a recreational “trail bike” as a motorcycle within the meaning of OCGA § 33-34-2 (11). Prince v. Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co., 143 Ga. App. 512 (239 SE2d 198) (1977); Walker v. Leader Nat. Ins. Co., 177 Ga. App. 556 (340 SE2d 231) (1986). We conclude that the recreational Honda three-wheeler likewise must be considered a motorcycle within the meaning of OCGA § 33-34-2 (11), and summary judgment for the appellee was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, C. J., and Pope, J., concur. John C. Edwards, Frank H. Childs, Jr., for appellees.

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

Related

Prince v. COTTON STATES MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
239 S.E.2d 198 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Walker v. Leader National Insurance
340 S.E.2d 231 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
357 S.E.2d 308, 182 Ga. App. 856, 1987 Ga. App. LEXIS 1837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/godwin-v-auto-owners-insurance-gactapp-1987.