Ivey v. Symms

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ivey v. Symms

73 S.E.2d 333, 87 Ga. App. 211, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 651

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 17, 1952

Docket34121

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 S.E.2d 333 (Ivey v. Symms) 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

Ivey v. Symms, 73 S.E.2d 333, 87 Ga. App. 211, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 651 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinions

Felton, J.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition. The allegations of the petition do not show unequivocally and as a matter of law that the plaintiff ran into the path of the defendant’s oncoming vehicle under circumstances under which the defendant could not have avoided injuring her by the exercise of ordinary care. The petition alleges that the plaintiff got within two feet of the south side of the road toward which she was traveling. Since the petition does not show facts which demand the finding that the plaintiff’s conduct was such as to make it impossible for the defendant to avoid injuring the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care, the questions involved should be submitted to a jury. In view of what has been said, we do not think that the cases cited in the dissent are applicable to the facts in this case.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P.J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur. Sutton, C.J., and Worrill, J., dissent.

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

Felton, J.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition. The allegations of the petition do not show unequivocally and as a matter of law that the plaintiff ran into the path of the defendant’s oncoming vehicle under circumstances under which the defendant could not have avoided injuring her by the exercise of ordinary care. The petition alleges that the plaintiff got within two feet of the south side of the road toward which she was traveling. Since the petition does not show facts which demand the finding that the plaintiff’s conduct was such as to make it impossible for the defendant to avoid injuring the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care, the questions involved should be submitted to a jury. In view of what has been said, we do not think that the cases cited in the dissent are applicable to the facts in this case.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P.J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur. Sutton, C.J., and Worrill, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E.2d 333, 87 Ga. App. 211, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ivey-v-symms-gactapp-1952.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack