Green Et Al. v. Knight Et Al., 153 Ga. App. 183, 264 S.E.2d 657 (1979)

Georgia Court Of Appeals, (September 11, 1979)

Docket number: 58439
ARGUED Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/20468924
Id. vLex: VLEX-20468924

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Summary:

Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part. Quillian, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Text:

James E. Hardy, Talmadge Woodman, for appellants.

Appellants brought an action against appellees for the wrongful death of their mother. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of appellee Williams Brothers Lumber Company and the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee Knight. Judgment was entered in favor of appellees. We affirm the judgment in favor of appellee Williams Brothers. However, due to an error in the charge, we must reverse the judgment in favor of appellee Knight.

On the morning of May 19, 1976, appellants' mother and another individual were riding on U. S. I-20 East in a car driven by appellee Knight. The car was in an "Exit Only" lane. However, appellee Knight did not want to exit. She attempted to remain on U. S. I-20 by crossing over an emergency zone marked by a series of white lines on the pavement. Due to the traffic on U. S. I-20, appellee Knight was unable to move into the right lane of the interstate. She went into a skid and collided with the back of a truck owned and operated by appellee Williams Brothers. (The truck was parked in the emergency zone because the driver of the truck thought he heard lumber on the back of the truck shifting about and he wanted to make sure it was properly secured.) Appellants' mother, who was sitting in the passenger seat of appellee Knight's automobile, died as a result of the collision.

1. At the close of the evidence, appellee Williams Brothers moved for directed verdict "on the ground that all of the evidence properly construed demands a finding in favor of Williams Brothers and against the plaintiff, the plaintiff having failed to create any issue of fact for the jury to decide as to any negligence of the defendant. The evidence without contradiction shows this defendant guilty of no evidence actionable in negligence."

CPA 50 (a) (Code Ann. 81A-150 (a)) states: ". . . A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor . . ." In the instant case, appellee Williams Brothers did not state the specific grounds on which its motion was based. It merely asserted that appellants failed to make out a prima facie case of negligence. Nonetheless, the trial court granted the motion.

Some jurisdictions have based this holding on the theory that "the adverse party who did not make a specific objection at trial to movant's failure to state specific grounds . . . is precluded from raising the objection on appeal . . ." Byerly v. Byerly, 38 N.C. App. 551 (119 Ga. App. 138 (166 SE2d 377) (1969). It is undisputed that appellee Knight saw the truck sitting in the emergency zone. Due to the speed at which she was traveling, she simply could not avoid colliding with it. Under the facts of this case, a red flag could not have saved appellant's mother. The trial court's direction of a verdict in favor of appellee Williams Brothers will not be disturbed.

2. The judgment in favor of appellee Knight must be reversed. Over objection, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I charge you that when a driver of a motor vehicle is confronted with a sudden emergency caused by the negligence of another, he is not to be held liable merely because he exercised bad judgment under the circumstances, but in such emergency is only charged with the duty of exercising ordinary care and diligence under the circumstances of the emergency confronting him." This charge should not have been given since it was not authorized by the evidence. Whatever sudden emergency existed in this case was attributable to appellee Knight herself. Certainly it cannot be contended that a sudden emergency was "caused by the negligence of another." There is simply no evidence of such an emergency in the record. The unauthorized instruction on sudden emergency placed an undue burden upon appellants. They are entitled to a new trial as to appellee Knight. See Baldwin v. Walker, 143 Ga. App. 382, 384 (238 SE2d 695) (1977).

John H. Stanford, Jr., Michael G. Frick, Arnold Wright, Jr., George W. Hart, for appellees.

1979

Other documents:
Black v Angelone 4th Cir 1999 | Fiscal Year 2008 Clean Fuels Grant Program Funds Solicitation of Project Proposals | USA vs Morgan 5th Cir 2007 | Filings: MATL LLP | Auto of Audiencia Provincial - Huelva, of February 27, 1999 | Howey Et Al v Yellow Cab Co United States Third-Party Defendant Appellant Gutmann Et Al v Yellow Cab Co ... | RESOLUCIÓN de 28 de marzo de 2005, de la Dirección General del Medio Natural de la Consejería de Medio Ambiente, por la q... | ANUNCIO del Ayuntamiento de Sant Celoni sobre provisión de una plaza. | case of tribunal superior de justicia madrid sala de lo social nº 12442 of april 11 2005 | reglamento (ce) n58/2005 de la comision, de 14 de enero de 2005, sobre la expedicion de certificados de ... | Case of Tribunal Superior de Justicia - Madrid - Sala de lo Social, of March 09, 1999 | Petty v. Lee Et Al., 132 Ga. App. 780, 209 S.E.2d 239 (1974) | JuzgadodeloSocialnúmeroDosdeNavarra- EDICTO