Inglett v. Ratliff

258 S.E.2d 320, 150 Ga. App. 688, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2249

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: July 12, 1979
• Docket: 57481
• Status: Published

Opinions

Smith, Judge.

We reverse the trial court’s grant of appellee Ratliffs motion for a directed verdict.

Appellants, Inglett and his mother, brought this action for injuries sustained when Inglett, while riding his bicycle, collided with a car driven by appellee. Inglett and a friend were bicycling home from school when the collision occurred. The testimony showed that appellee first sighted the two boys from a distance of two hundred yards. They were proceeding toward appellee, in his lane of traffic. When the two saw appellee, they switched lanes, and Inglett took up a position just to the right of the center line. The impact occurred when Inglett lost control of his bicycle and suddenly swerved over the center line into appellee’s path. Appellee testified that just before the accident he was traveling at a speed of twenty miles per hour and that he applied his brakes "as quick as [he] could,” when he sighted Inglett directly in front of the car, at a distance of about ten feet.

We cannot agree that the evidence introduced demanded a verdict in favor of appellee. " 'Questions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause are peculiarly matters for the jury, and a court should not take the place of the jury in solving them, except in plain and indisputable cases.’ ” Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jones, 236 Ga. 448 (224 SE2d 25) (1976). "[W]here there is nodisputeastothefacts,and they amount to a confession of liability as a matter of law, a directed verdict is warranted. But this is not such a case; such cases are rare, and without an admission of liability or an indisputable fact situation that clearly establishes liability, it is error for the trial judge to direct a verdict on theissueofliabilityinfavorof eitherparty.” Id., p.450.The evidence introduced was inconclusive as to whether appellee, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have reacted more quickly than he did to Inglett’s peril and as to whether appellee reasonably should have taken other precautions when he sighted Inglett approaching on his bike, very near the center line and accompanied by another young cycler. It was for the jury to decide those and the other questions governing the issue of appellee’s liability for the injuries sustained.

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, P. J., McMurray, P. J., and Carley, J., concur. Banke, J., concurs specially. Deen, C.J., Birdsong and Underwood, JJ., dissent. Shulman, J., not participating. Argued March 13, 1979 Decided July 12, 1979. Richard B. Eason, Jr., for appellant. Beck, Goddard, Owen & Murray, Samuel A. Murray, for appellee.