Meddin v. Karsman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Meddin v. Karsman

152 S.E. 601, 41 Ga. App. 282, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 533

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 5, 1930

Docket20200

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 152 S.E. 601 (Meddin v. Karsman) 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

Meddin v. Karsman, 152 S.E. 601, 41 Ga. App. 282, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. One riding by invitation and gratuitously in another’s automobile can not recover for injury caused by the owner’s negligence in driving, unless it amounted to gross negligence. Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 (106 S. E. 297), and citations; Peavy v. Peavy, 36 Ga. App. 202 (136 S. E. 96).

2. “Gross neglect is the want of that care which every man of common sense, how inattentive soever he may be, takes of his own property.” Civil Code (1910), § 3473.

3. The petition in the instant case alleged that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the gross negligence of the defendant in and while operating his automobile in which the petitioner was riding as an invited guest, and this court can not hold as a matter of law that the averments of gross negligence were not supported by the facts stated in the petition. It follows that the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer. The facts stated in the petition distinguish this case from the Peavy case and the other cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Eloodworth, JJ., concur. Connerat & Hunter, for plaintiff in error. M. L. Cherlcas, contra.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. One riding by invitation and gratuitously in another’s automobile can not recover for injury caused by the owner’s negligence in driving, unless it amounted to gross negligence. Epps v. Parrish, 26 Ga. App. 399 (106 S. E. 297), and citations; Peavy v. Peavy, 36 Ga. App. 202 (136 S. E. 96).

2. “Gross neglect is the want of that care which every man of common sense, how inattentive soever he may be, takes of his own property.” Civil Code (1910), § 3473.

3. The petition in the instant case alleged that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the gross negligence of the defendant in and while operating his automobile in which the petitioner was riding as an invited guest, and this court can not hold as a matter of law that the averments of gross negligence were not supported by the facts stated in the petition. It follows that the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer. The facts stated in the petition distinguish this case from the Peavy case and the other cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Eloodworth, JJ., concur. Connerat & Hunter, for plaintiff in error. M. L. Cherlcas, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 601, 41 Ga. App. 282, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meddin-v-karsman-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack