Case Name: Columbus Railroad Company v. Love
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1921-12-14
Citations: 28 Ga. App. 15
Docket Number: 12541
Parties: Columbus Railroad Company v. Love.
Judges: Stephens and Bill, J.J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 15–16

Head Matter:
12541.
Columbus Railroad Company v. Love.
Decided December 14, 1921.
Action for damages; from Muscogee superior court — Judge Munro. May 21, 1921.
The action was for damages on account of a collision of a streetcar with the plaintiff’s automobile. The allegations of the amended petition as to the collision were, in substance, that the plaintiff was driving an automobile at night in a southerly direction along Fifth Avenue in the City of Columbus, and, when approaching the intersection of Tenth street, which runs east and west and on which is a double line of the defendant’s electric-railway tracks that cross Fifth Avenue, he looked to see whether any car of the street-railway was approaching, and, not seeing or hearing a car, he turned the automobile to the right, driving into Tenth street, with his attention directed in the direction in which he was driving, and that when the front wheels of the automobile were about 20 feet in Tenth street from where the west curb line of Fifth Avenue and the north curb line of Tenth street intersect, an electric-car of the defendant running westward on the north track on Tenth street at the high rate of speed of from 30 to 40 miles an hour, without warning or signal, struck the automobile and knocked it a distance of 35 or 40 feet westward, injuring the plaintiff and damaging his automobile. It was alleged that the plaintiff was in the exercise of all necessary and reasonable diligence, and that the view and sound of the street-car approaching on that street were obstructed by a storehouse at his left on the corner of that street and Fifth Avenue; and that the proximate cause of the damage was negligence on the part of the defendant in running the street-car at excessive speed, and in failing to keep a proper lookout, and failing to apply the proper brakes and other appliances in common use to stop the car.

Opinion:
Jenkins, P. J.
The rulings made by this court in Tennessee &c. R. Co. v. Neely, 27 Ga. App. 491 (108 S. E. 629, 630), are controlling in the instant case. The court did not err in refusing to dismiss the petition, on demurrer. See also, Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Stafford, 146 Ga. 206, 209 (91 S. E. 29); Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Jarrett, 22 Ga. App. 313 (4), 314 (96 S. E. 17).
Judgment affirmed.
Stephens and Bill, J.J., concur.
The defendant demurred to the petition generally and on the ground that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care.
F. U. Garrard, A. S. Bradley, for plaintiff in error.
George C. Palmer, contra.