Roberts v. Bryant

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Roberts v. Bryant

157 S.E.2d 517, 116 Ga. App. 386, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 825

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 27, 1967

Docket43084, 43116

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.E.2d 517 (Roberts v. Bryant) 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

Roberts v. Bryant, 157 S.E.2d 517, 116 Ga. App. 386, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

The rule is well established that in order for there to be a recovery for the homicide of a person whose death is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, the deceased on the occasion when fatally injured must have been in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety. Southland Butane Gas Co. v. Blackwell, 211 Ga. 665 (88 SE2d 6). The evidence adduced upon the trial and related in the foregoing statement of facts affirmatively discloses that the youth for whose homicide the suit was brought was not in the exercise of ordinary care in that he took the obvious risk of physical injury by acquiescing in and encouraging the reckless driving which resulted in his death.

The testimony of the conversation between the defendant Anderson and the deceased which immediately preceded the tragic incident was of probative value, being both a part of the res gestae and in the nature of original evidence. Ellis v. Southern R. Co., 96 Ga. App. 687 (101 SE2d 230).

[389]*389Since the verdict and judgment complained of was demanded, the appellants’ enumerations of error excepting to portions of the charge will not be considered. Castile v. Burton, 200 Ga. 877, 883 (3) (38 SE2d 919); Richardson v. Hairried, 202 Ga. 610, 615 (2) (44 SE2d 237).

Judgment affirmed on main appeal; cross appeal dismissed.

Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

The rule is well established that in order for there to be a recovery for the homicide of a person whose death is alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant, the deceased on the occasion when fatally injured must have been in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety. Southland Butane Gas Co. v. Blackwell, 211 Ga. 665 (88 SE2d 6). The evidence adduced upon the trial and related in the foregoing statement of facts affirmatively discloses that the youth for whose homicide the suit was brought was not in the exercise of ordinary care in that he took the obvious risk of physical injury by acquiescing in and encouraging the reckless driving which resulted in his death.

The testimony of the conversation between the defendant Anderson and the deceased which immediately preceded the tragic incident was of probative value, being both a part of the res gestae and in the nature of original evidence. Ellis v. Southern R. Co., 96 Ga. App. 687 (101 SE2d 230).

[389]*389Since the verdict and judgment complained of was demanded, the appellants’ enumerations of error excepting to portions of the charge will not be considered. Castile v. Burton, 200 Ga. 877, 883 (3) (38 SE2d 919); Richardson v. Hairried, 202 Ga. 610, 615 (2) (44 SE2d 237).

Judgment affirmed on main appeal; cross appeal dismissed.

Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E.2d 517, 116 Ga. App. 386, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-bryant-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack