Savannah Transit Co. v. Odum

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Savannah Transit Co. v. Odum

125 S.E.2d 538, 105 Ga. App. 740, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1023

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1962

Docket39378

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 125 S.E.2d 538 (Savannah Transit Co. v. Odum) 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

Savannah Transit Co. v. Odum, 125 S.E.2d 538, 105 Ga. App. 740, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1023 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

A common carrier has a duty to use extraordinary diligence to protect its passengers from known or reasonably observable danger from outside sources. This duty of extraordinary care is owed towards passengers, of a bus from the time they board the bus, and not just when the bus is in motion. Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Burton, 103 Ga. App. 688, 690 (120 SE2d 663). The failure to warn a passenger of such danger may amount to negligence. Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Murphy, 28 Ga. App. 173 (110 SE 680); Yellow Cab Co. v. Carmichael, 33 Ga. App. 364, 368 (126 SE 269), annotated in 42 ALR 174; 10 Am. Jur. 256, § 1439.

The allegation that the bus driver "was in a position to observe what was happening, in the exercise of the care imposed upon him should have observed what was happening, and should have given his passengers warning of the impending danger,” is a general allegation of negligence which is good as against a general demurrer. Keenan Welding Supplies Co. v. Bronner, 100 Ga. App. 400 (111 SE2d 140). Whether a bus driver, charged with the duty of extraordinary care, neglected a duty to warn a passenger injured by the act of a third person at the bus stop, is a question that must be decided by a jury from the evidence before them.

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

A common carrier has a duty to use extraordinary diligence to protect its passengers from known or reasonably observable danger from outside sources. This duty of extraordinary care is owed towards passengers, of a bus from the time they board the bus, and not just when the bus is in motion. Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Burton, 103 Ga. App. 688, 690 (120 SE2d 663). The failure to warn a passenger of such danger may amount to negligence. Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Murphy, 28 Ga. App. 173 (110 SE 680); Yellow Cab Co. v. Carmichael, 33 Ga. App. 364, 368 (126 SE 269), annotated in 42 ALR 174; 10 Am. Jur. 256, § 1439.

The allegation that the bus driver "was in a position to observe what was happening, in the exercise of the care imposed upon him should have observed what was happening, and should have given his passengers warning of the impending danger,” is a general allegation of negligence which is good as against a general demurrer. Keenan Welding Supplies Co. v. Bronner, 100 Ga. App. 400 (111 SE2d 140). Whether a bus driver, charged with the duty of extraordinary care, neglected a duty to warn a passenger injured by the act of a third person at the bus stop, is a question that must be decided by a jury from the evidence before them.

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.E.2d 538, 105 Ga. App. 740, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savannah-transit-co-v-odum-gactapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack