Hennemier v. Morris

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hennemier v. Morris

173 S.E. 924, 48 Ga. App. 840, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 219

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 29, 1934

Docket23565

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 173 S.E. 924 (Hennemier v. Morris) 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

Hennemier v. Morris, 173 S.E. 924, 48 Ga. App. 840, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 219 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The operator of a motorcycle has the right to assume that the operator of an automobile will obey a municipal ordinance prohibiting any motor-vehicle from being driven over a “stop” sign, at the intersection of two streets, until after the vehicle is brought to a full stop; and the driver of the motorcycle is not guilty of a want of ordinary care or of contributory negligence in acting on such assumption, unless the circumstances are such as to warn him that the operator of the automobile will probably fail to obey the ordinance. And whether the circumstances are sufficient for such warning is generally a question for the jury. 42 C. J. 971, 972, 973, §§ 699, 701; Pederson v. O’Rourke, 54 N. D. 428 (209 N. W. 798, 800) ; Klare v. Peterson, 161 Minn. 16 (200 N. W. 817) ; Kilroy v. Justrite Co., 209 Ill. App. 499; Simonsen v. Christopher Co., 186 Cal. 786 (200 Pac. 615) ; Elgin Dairy Co. v. Shepherd, 183 Ind. 466 (108 N. E. 234).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the petition as amended set out a cause of action, and the general demurrers thereto were properly overruled. See Salmon v. Rogers, 40 Ga. App. 73 (149 S. E. 52), and cit.; Cochran v. Kendrick, 43 Ga. App. 135 (158 S. E. 57), and cit.; Idle Hour Club v. Robinson, 42 Ga. App. 650 (157 S. E. 125).

3. The petition as finally amended was not subject to any of the special grounds of demurrer interposed. Several of these grounds are expressly abandoned by counsel for the plaintiff in error in their brief; the defects in the petition, pointed out by other special grounds, were cured by amendment; and the remaining special grounds axe without substantial merit.

4. The court did not err in overruling all of the grounds of demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, J., concur. Ernest J. llaar, for plaintiff in error. Abrahams, Bouhan, Atlcinson ■& Lawrence,-contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The operator of a motorcycle has the right to assume that the operator of an automobile will obey a municipal ordinance prohibiting any motor-vehicle from being driven over a “stop” sign, at the intersection of two streets, until after the vehicle is brought to a full stop; and the driver of the motorcycle is not guilty of a want of ordinary care or of contributory negligence in acting on such assumption, unless the circumstances are such as to warn him that the operator of the automobile will probably fail to obey the ordinance. And whether the circumstances are sufficient for such warning is generally a question for the jury. 42 C. J. 971, 972, 973, §§ 699, 701; Pederson v. O’Rourke, 54 N. D. 428 (209 N. W. 798, 800) ; Klare v. Peterson, 161 Minn. 16 (200 N. W. 817) ; Kilroy v. Justrite Co., 209 Ill. App. 499; Simonsen v. Christopher Co., 186 Cal. 786 (200 Pac. 615) ; Elgin Dairy Co. v. Shepherd, 183 Ind. 466 (108 N. E. 234).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the petition as amended set out a cause of action, and the general demurrers thereto were properly overruled. See Salmon v. Rogers, 40 Ga. App. 73 (149 S. E. 52), and cit.; Cochran v. Kendrick, 43 Ga. App. 135 (158 S. E. 57), and cit.; Idle Hour Club v. Robinson, 42 Ga. App. 650 (157 S. E. 125).

3. The petition as finally amended was not subject to any of the special grounds of demurrer interposed. Several of these grounds are expressly abandoned by counsel for the plaintiff in error in their brief; the defects in the petition, pointed out by other special grounds, were cured by amendment; and the remaining special grounds axe without substantial merit.

4. The court did not err in overruling all of the grounds of demurrer to the petition as amended.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, J., concur. Ernest J. llaar, for plaintiff in error. Abrahams, Bouhan, Atlcinson ■& Lawrence,-contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.E. 924, 48 Ga. App. 840, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennemier-v-morris-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack