Court Opinion

ID: 9585914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:05:06.278884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:16.811673
License: Public Domain

Sognier, Judge,
concurring specially.
I specially concur in Division 4 for the reasons set forth fully in my special concurrence in Chadwick v. Miller, 169 Ga. App. 338 (-SE2d-) (1983), which I will not reiterate here, except to note the following: First, I would not overrule Garrett v. Brannen, 164 Ga. App. 10 (296 SE2d 205) (1982), inasmuch as that holding, which did *352not approve the use of the instruction on accident but found instead that the charge was harmless error, can be restricted to its peculiar facts. Second, since the instant case, like Morrow v. Southeastern Stages, 68 Ga. App. 142 (22 SE2d 336) (1942), and Toles v. Hair, 83 Ga. App. 144 (63 SE2d 3) (1951), involves a passenger in one of the two vehicles involved in the collision and, because the evidence shows that the collision resulted from the negligence of either one driver or the other, or both, I concur in the majority’s holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law of accident.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen and Judge Birdsong join in this special concurrence and Judge Pope concurs in part.