Letton v. Kitchen

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Letton v. Kitchen

139 S.E. 155, 37 Ga. App. 111, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 502

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1927

Docket18151

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 155 (Letton v. Kitchen) 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

Letton v. Kitchen, 139 S.E. 155, 37 Ga. App. 111, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 502 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Bbovles, O. J.

1. Where the driver of a motor-truck, traveling on a street in the City of Atlanta, attempted to turn to liis right into an intersecting street without extending his arm at an angle above the horizontal as a signal of his intention so to turn, he was guilty of a violation of an ordinance of the city; and where the driver of an automobile, traveling behind the truck and in'the same direction, attempted .to pass the truck on the right, in violation of another ordinance of the city, just [112]*112as tlie truck began to turn to its right into the intersecting street, and the driver of the following automobile was thereby forced to drive upon the adjacent sidewalk, and his automobile struck and injured a person upon the sidewalk, in a suit brought' by the injured person for damages against both drivers it was not error for the court to overrule the general demurrer to the petition, interposed by the driver of the truck, since it was a question of fact for the determination of the jury whether the negligence of the driver of the truck contributed directly and concurrently with the negligence of the driver of the automobile in causing the injuries sued for. See, in this connection, Bonner v. Standard Oil Co., 22 Ga. App. 532 (96 S. E. 573), and cit.; Ga. Ry. & Power Co. v. Ryan, 24 Ga. App. 288 (100 S. E. 713); Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Wallace, 27 Ga. App. 415 (108 S. E. 624) ; Gooch v. Ga. Marble Co., 151 Ga. 462 (107 S. E. 47); Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Wheat, 32 Ga. App. 151 (122 S. E. 794); Rome Ry. & Light Co. v. King, 30 Ga. App. 231 (2) (117 S. E. 464).

Decided July 14, 1927. Slaton & Hoplcins, for plaintiff in error. Harwell, Fairman & Barrett, A. C. Corbett, D. J. Meyerhardt, contra.

2. The court overruled all the special grounds of the demurrer except ground 13, which was sustained. The only allegations in the petition as to the negligence of the driver of the truck which were relevant to the plaintiff’s cause of action against him were in 'reference to his failure to give the proper warning signal when he turned into the intersecting street, and the court erred in overruling the following special grounds of the demurrer: 4, 6, 7, 9, 11(b), 11(c), 11(d) and 11(e).

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Bbovles, O. J.

1. Where the driver of a motor-truck, traveling on a street in the City of Atlanta, attempted to turn to liis right into an intersecting street without extending his arm at an angle above the horizontal as a signal of his intention so to turn, he was guilty of a violation of an ordinance of the city; and where the driver of an automobile, traveling behind the truck and in'the same direction, attempted .to pass the truck on the right, in violation of another ordinance of the city, just [112]*112as tlie truck began to turn to its right into the intersecting street, and the driver of the following automobile was thereby forced to drive upon the adjacent sidewalk, and his automobile struck and injured a person upon the sidewalk, in a suit brought' by the injured person for damages against both drivers it was not error for the court to overrule the general demurrer to the petition, interposed by the driver of the truck, since it was a question of fact for the determination of the jury whether the negligence of the driver of the truck contributed directly and concurrently with the negligence of the driver of the automobile in causing the injuries sued for. See, in this connection, Bonner v. Standard Oil Co., 22 Ga. App. 532 (96 S. E. 573), and cit.; Ga. Ry. & Power Co. v. Ryan, 24 Ga. App. 288 (100 S. E. 713); Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Wallace, 27 Ga. App. 415 (108 S. E. 624) ; Gooch v. Ga. Marble Co., 151 Ga. 462 (107 S. E. 47); Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Wheat, 32 Ga. App. 151 (122 S. E. 794); Rome Ry. & Light Co. v. King, 30 Ga. App. 231 (2) (117 S. E. 464).

Decided July 14, 1927. Slaton & Hoplcins, for plaintiff in error. Harwell, Fairman & Barrett, A. C. Corbett, D. J. Meyerhardt, contra.

2. The court overruled all the special grounds of the demurrer except ground 13, which was sustained. The only allegations in the petition as to the negligence of the driver of the truck which were relevant to the plaintiff’s cause of action against him were in 'reference to his failure to give the proper warning signal when he turned into the intersecting street, and the court erred in overruling the following special grounds of the demurrer: 4, 6, 7, 9, 11(b), 11(c), 11(d) and 11(e).

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 155, 37 Ga. App. 111, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/letton-v-kitchen-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack