Wofford v. Tinney

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wofford v. Tinney

76 S.E.2d 138, 88 Ga. App. 128, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1030

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 2, 1953

Docket34550

StatusPublished

This text of 76 S.E.2d 138 (Wofford v. Tinney) 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

Wofford v. Tinney, 76 S.E.2d 138, 88 Ga. App. 128, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1030 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

The defendant contends that the petition shows on its face that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and for this reason the court properly sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the action. We do not agree with him. The petition does not allege facts showing any specific acts of negligence on the plaintiff’s part or that the plaintiff in the exercise of ordinary care could have discovered the defendant’s negligence and could have avoided the consequences thereof, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to negative his negligence. Bach v. Bragg Bros. & Blackwell, Inc., 53 Ga. App. 574, 577 (186 S. E. 711). Besides, except in clear and indisputable cases, of which this is not one, questions of negligence, comparative negligence, and proximate cause are questions for a jury.

For a case involving practically the same facts as the instant case (except as to the hour of the collision), see Callaghan v. Elliott, 84 Ga. App. 90 (65 S. E. 2d 633).

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the action.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

The defendant contends that the petition shows on its face that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the proximate cause of the collision and for this reason the court properly sustained the general demurrer and dismissed the action. We do not agree with him. The petition does not allege facts showing any specific acts of negligence on the plaintiff’s part or that the plaintiff in the exercise of ordinary care could have discovered the defendant’s negligence and could have avoided the consequences thereof, and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to negative his negligence. Bach v. Bragg Bros. & Blackwell, Inc., 53 Ga. App. 574, 577 (186 S. E. 711). Besides, except in clear and indisputable cases, of which this is not one, questions of negligence, comparative negligence, and proximate cause are questions for a jury.

For a case involving practically the same facts as the instant case (except as to the hour of the collision), see Callaghan v. Elliott, 84 Ga. App. 90 (65 S. E. 2d 633).

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the action.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C. J., and Worrill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E.2d 138, 88 Ga. App. 128, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wofford-v-tinney-gactapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack