Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Harley v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee

Harley v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee

149 S.E. 76, 40 Ga. App. 171, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 73
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 10, 1929
Docket19710
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 149 S.E. 76 (Harley v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee) 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
Harley v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee, 149 S.E. 76, 40 Ga. App. 171, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 73 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

John T. Harley brought suit against the Life & Casualty Company of Tennessee, upon an accident-insurance policy, alleging, in part, that when he was walking on a sidewalk in the City of Atlanta an automobile going at a rapid rate of speed in the middle of the street passed him, going in an opposite direction, and that as it passed him a nut on the wheel became detached, and, flying in a swift and violent manner, struck him in the left eye and caused the loss of sight in that eye. The defendant admitted that the policy was in force at the time of the accident, but denied liability. After the introduction of evidence a nonsuit was granted, and the plaintiff excepted.

The provision of the policy of insurance applicable to this case is as follows: “If the insured be struck or knocked down, or run over . . by a vehicle propelled by steam, . . gasoline,” etc. The insured was protected by his policy if struck, knocked down, or run over by an automobile. A nut, flying off of an automobile, is not an automobile or a substantial portion thereof. See, in this connection, Great Eastern Casualty Co. v. Blackwelder, 21 Ga. App. 586 (94 S. E. 843). Furthermore, the plaintiff was the only witness who testified that he was struck by the nut, and his testimony, construed as a whole and most strongly against him, fails absolutely to show that the nut came from an automobile. He testified that he did not see the nut come off the automobile, and did not know what struck him until he saw the nut upon the sidewalk near him after he [172]*172was injured. His statement that it flew off the automobile (when he did not see it fly off) is a mere conclusion and not supported by any evidence. It is just as reasonable to infer that the nut was lying on the street and that the automobile struck the nut and put it in motion and thereby caused it to strike the insured. The nonsuit was properly granted.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. Jand Lulce, J., concur.

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

Related

Blankenbaker v. Great Central Insurance Company
281 N.E.2d 496 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1972)
Elrod v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Co.
142 S.E.2d 857 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1965)
Bowab v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co.
152 So. 2d 66 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1963)
DiMartino v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
192 A.2d 157 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Quinn v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
120 S.E.2d 15 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1961)
Bobo v. State
112 S.E.2d 205 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Cutshall
326 S.W.2d 443 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1959)
GEORGIA RAILROAD &C. CO. v. Flynt
79 S.E.2d 377 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Carpenter v. Life Casualty Ins. Co. of Tenn.
41 S.E.2d 271 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
The Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Curry
24 So. 2d 316 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1945)
Brown v. Life Casualty Ins. Co.
146 So. 332 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 S.E. 76, 40 Ga. App. 171, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harley-v-life-casualty-insurance-co-of-tennessee-gactapp-1929.