Court Opinion

ID: 9582769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:31:08.616878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:20.768794
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Judge,
dissenting.
This wrongful death action arose when plaintiffs’ decedent was killed while riding his motorcycle east on Powers Ferry Road in Fulton County and collided with an automobile driven by defendant. Several hundred feet west of the scene of the collision Powers Ferry Road crosses the Chattahoochee River by way of a narrow, one-lane bridge. Access to the bridge is controlled by traffic lights at each end of the bridge which allow traffic in only one direction to be upon the bridge at any one time. The traffic light at the west end of the bridge, which controls access to the bridge by eastbound motorists, was more than 750 feet from the scene of the collision. Testimony was allowed in evidence over objection that plaintiffs’ decedent was stopped at the west end traffic light but ran it before it turned green. He then accelerated to approximately 50 miles per hour upon the bridge and before he passed from the sight of the witnesses.
The collision occurred when defendant, who had been driving west on Powers Ferry Road, attempted to turn left *101into a private drive leading to a restaurant parking lot approximately 200 feet from the east end of the bridge.
The majority hold that the lower court did not err in allowing evidence and in charging on negligence per se, that is, that plaintiffs’ decedent had disobeyed the traffic signal on the opposite side of a bridge some 750 feet from the point of impact on Powers Ferry Road at an intersection with a private drive leading to a restaurant parking lot. It is noted that this drive is located approximately 200 feet from the east end of the bridge, and that this witness lost sight of the motorcyclist, but she later saw where the collision occurred.
I cannot agree that the violation of the traffic signal light should have been allowed in evidence or a charge as to negligence per se as a result thereof was authorized.
In determining whether the violation of a statute is negligence per se as to a specific individual it is necessary to examine the purpose of the statute and decide (1) whether the injured person falls within the class of persons the statute was intended to protect; and (2) whether the harm complained of was the harm the statute was intended to guard against. Rhodes v. Baker, 116 Ga. App. 157, 169 (2b) (156 SE2d 545).
Code Ann. § 68-1612 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 569, in effect at the time of the collision in the case sub judice, although repealed by Ga. L. 1974, pp. 633, 645, effective July 1, 1974, (see new Code Ann. § 68A-201)) prohibits the disobedience of the instructions of any official traffic-control device unless otherwise directed by a police officer. The purpose of this statute is to expedite the flow of traffic and avoid collisions by controlling the flow of traffic within the area regulated by the traffic signal. The individuals protected by this statute are those motorists and pedestrians traveling within the area where the flow of traffic is controlled by a traffic signal. There was no evidence that the defendant in this case was within the area controlled by the traffic signal, nor was there any evidence that he was entering or leaving such an area.
The purpose of Code Ann. § 68-1626 (c) (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556,577, as amended, in effect at the time of the collision in the case sub judice, repealed by Ga. L. 1975, *102pp. 1582,1588 (see new Code Ann. Ch. 68A-8)) is to prevent collisions upon roadways where special hazards exist by requiring the motorists on those roadways to reduce their speed so much as is necessary to provide for the safety of all users. The individuals protected by this statute are the motorists upon such a roadway who would be endangered by the higher probability of collision if their fellow motorists are not required to reduce their speed. The statute also protects pedestrians and others using the area immediately adjacent to the roadways who might be endangered by collisions upon the roadway or loss of control of a vehicle thereon. There is no evidence that the roadway at or near the site of the accident was narrow, winding or that any other special hazard existed. There was considerable evidence that the bridge was approximately 200 feet away. The collision did not occur on the bridge.
Defendant in this case does not fall within the class of persons for the protection of whom these statutes were enacted. Therefore in my opinion the trial court erred in charging the language of these statutes to the jury.
The court also erred in allowing into evidence over objection the irrelevant testimony that plaintiff had run a red light shortly before the time of the collision. The traffic lights were installed on each end of the bridge for the purpose of expediting the flow of traffic and avoiding collisions by controlling the flow of traffic within the area on the bridge regulated by the traffic signals. The running of the red light was irrelevant and inadmissible inasmuch as no proximate causal connection with the collision occurring more than 750 feet away was shown by the evidence. See such cases as Tiller v. Ga. Power Co., 68 Ga. App. 224 (22 SE2d 623); Fielding v. Driggers, 126 Ga. App. 365, 366 (1) (190 SE2d 601); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Stanfield, 213 Ga. 436, 437 (99 SE2d 209).
I therefore dissent.