King v. Mention

156 S.E.2d 488, 116 Ga. App. 209, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 749
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided June 12, 1967·No. 42844·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

The uncontradicted evidence discloses that the deceased not only took part in procuring the pushing of Landy’s car, but that he actively assumed a joint control of the venture in that he directed the placing of the cars, back bumper to back bumper, watched up the highway as the pushing went on, “directing traffic” and instructing King as to what he should do and at what speed he should push.

In these circumstances it must follow that he was equally chargeable with King’s negligence, barring a recovery by him for his injuries. Code §§ 105-603, 105-1803; Southern R. Co. v. Hogan, 131 Ga. 157 (62 SE 64). And compare Beasley v. Elder, 88 Ga. App. 419 (76 SE2d 849).

Judgment reversed with direction that the defendant King’s motion for judgment n.o.v. be granted.

Felton, C. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

King v. Mention, 156 S.E.2d 488, 116 Ga. App. 209, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 749 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

156 S.E.2d 488 (King v. Mention) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chandler v. Gately
167 S.E.2d 697 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)