Krise v. Meyers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Krise v. Meyers

239 S.E.2d 185, 143 Ga. App. 615, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2432

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1977

Docket54004

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 S.E.2d 185 (Krise v. Meyers) 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

Krise v. Meyers, 239 S.E.2d 185, 143 Ga. App. 615, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2432 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

Smith, Judge.

The jury returned a verdict for Meyers, the defendant in the trial court. Krise appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial based on general grounds and on special grounds asserting the court erred in certain evidential rulings. We find no error and affirm.

Krise brought this negligence action to recover for injuries he sustained when the car in which he was a passenger collided with Meyers’ car. The evidence showed that it was a rainy day and Meyers was traveling in a line of traffic on U. S. Highway 278, at a speed of thirty-five to forty miles per hour and at a distance of about twenty feet from the car preceding him, when the traffic in front of him came to an abrupt stop. Meyers came to an almost complete halt, without event, and then he proceeded as before. The collision occurred when the traffic again came to a sudden halt and Meyers attempted to stop. This time, his car skidded out of control on the rain-slicked highway, turned sideways and went two feet over the center line, where it hit Krise’s car head-on. Subsequently to the collision, Meyers entered a plea of guilty to the traffic offense charge that he was "on the wrong side of the road.”

1. Without any objection, the court charged the jury that Krise could not recover if they found his injuries were the result of an accident that "occurred without being caused by either the negligence of the plaintiff or the defendant.” From the evidence adduced at trial, the jury might well have concluded that the collision was an inevitable accident caused by the road conditions and not [616]*616by negligence on the part of Meyers. Cartey v. Smith, 105 Ga. App. 809 (2) (125 SE2d 723). Likewise, the jury could have concluded that the violation of the traffic statute was inevitable and excusable under the circumstances. Herman v. Sladofsky, 301 Mass. 534 (17 NE2d 879); Kisling v. Thierman, 214 Ia. 911 (243 NW 552). Since there was evidence in support of the jury’s verdict, this court will not disturb it. Hutchinson v. Tillman, 133 Ga. App. 660 (211 SE2d 912).

Argued May 23, 1977 Decided October 3, 1977 Rehearing denied October 21, 1977 Parker & O’Callaghan, James I. Parker, for appellant. Mundy & Gammáge, E. Lamar Gammage, for appellee.

2. The remaining enumerations relate only to the question of damages, and, since the jury found for Meyers, they present no grounds for reversal. Tripcony v. Pickett, 132 Ga. App. 563 (208 SE2d 574).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C.J., concurs. McMurray, J., concurs specially.

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

Smith, Judge.

The jury returned a verdict for Meyers, the defendant in the trial court. Krise appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for new trial based on general grounds and on special grounds asserting the court erred in certain evidential rulings. We find no error and affirm.

Krise brought this negligence action to recover for injuries he sustained when the car in which he was a passenger collided with Meyers’ car. The evidence showed that it was a rainy day and Meyers was traveling in a line of traffic on U. S. Highway 278, at a speed of thirty-five to forty miles per hour and at a distance of about twenty feet from the car preceding him, when the traffic in front of him came to an abrupt stop. Meyers came to an almost complete halt, without event, and then he proceeded as before. The collision occurred when the traffic again came to a sudden halt and Meyers attempted to stop. This time, his car skidded out of control on the rain-slicked highway, turned sideways and went two feet over the center line, where it hit Krise’s car head-on. Subsequently to the collision, Meyers entered a plea of guilty to the traffic offense charge that he was "on the wrong side of the road.”

1. Without any objection, the court charged the jury that Krise could not recover if they found his injuries were the result of an accident that "occurred without being caused by either the negligence of the plaintiff or the defendant.” From the evidence adduced at trial, the jury might well have concluded that the collision was an inevitable accident caused by the road conditions and not [616]*616by negligence on the part of Meyers. Cartey v. Smith, 105 Ga. App. 809 (2) (125 SE2d 723). Likewise, the jury could have concluded that the violation of the traffic statute was inevitable and excusable under the circumstances. Herman v. Sladofsky, 301 Mass. 534 (17 NE2d 879); Kisling v. Thierman, 214 Ia. 911 (243 NW 552). Since there was evidence in support of the jury’s verdict, this court will not disturb it. Hutchinson v. Tillman, 133 Ga. App. 660 (211 SE2d 912).

Argued May 23, 1977 Decided October 3, 1977 Rehearing denied October 21, 1977 Parker & O’Callaghan, James I. Parker, for appellant. Mundy & Gammáge, E. Lamar Gammage, for appellee.

2. The remaining enumerations relate only to the question of damages, and, since the jury found for Meyers, they present no grounds for reversal. Tripcony v. Pickett, 132 Ga. App. 563 (208 SE2d 574).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C.J., concurs. McMurray, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.E.2d 185, 143 Ga. App. 615, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krise-v-meyers-gactapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack