Court Opinion

ID: 9578331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:44:14.284932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:47.287970
License: Public Domain

Eberhardt, Presiding Judge,
dissenting in part. While we agree with the holdings as reflected in the first nine divisions of the majority opinion, we cannot agree with Division 10 and must dissent.
The intersection where the plaintiff was injured when attempting to cross the street was a controlled one—controlled by traffic lights indicating the direction to be taken by traffic, whether vehicular or pedestrian, moving toward the intersection, directions, i. e., whether from north or south, east or west, and whether traffic in the respective directions should stop (by a red light) or move (by a green light).
The evidence was conflicting as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant had the green light just prior to and at the time the plaintiff moved into the intersection and started to cross the street in front of defendant’s truck.
Mr. Mitchell, a disinterested third party, testified that he came up to the intersection in his car and stopped because a red light was showing, and that shortly after the defendant came up and likewise stopped in the traffic lane immediately to his left. The traffic lights changed and Mr. Mitchell started to move on through the intersection, but saw Mrs. Childs, the plaintiff, step down from the curb and move "in a trot” toward the other side of the street. He hurriedly applied his brakes and she went past the front of his car and in front of the defendant’s truck. He started up and moved on through the intersection, but stopped and went back when he observed that Mrs. Childs had been hit by the truck, which had started to move forward. It had moved only a few feet, but knocked her down and the front *623wheel passed over her, breaking a leg. He was positive that the traffic light facing him and the truck had been green, and that when Mrs. Childs entered the street it had to be red for her.
Plaintiff testified that when she came up to the intersection she looked up and saw the traffic light facing her to be green, and then started on across. She did not know whether the light had changed after she had looked.
The charges to which timely exception was made were taken from plaintiff’s requests, which, in turn, were taken from Eubanks v. Mullis, 51 Ga. App. 728 (181 SE 604) and Claxton v. Hooks, 68 Ga. App. 383 (23 SE2d 101).
The exceptions were that the charge was tantamount to telling the jury that the plaintiff had a right to be in the intersection at the time she was injured, and that it was not required that she look or listen before entering to ascertain whether vehicles were approaching, while the driver of a vehicle was obligated to anticipate her presence in the intersection; that the charge was an incorrect principle of law and inapplicable to the instant case, was wholly unsupported by the evidence, and amounted to a direction of a verdict against the defendant.
We are not at all convinced that the charges are fair and accurate statements of the rulings made in Eubanks v. Mullis, 51 Ga. App. 728, supra, and Claxton v. Hooks, 68 Ga. App. 383, supra. Even if they were, however, it was error to charge them in the instant case, for here we are dealing with an intersection controlled by a traffic light, and the situation is governed by the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways (Code Ann. Ch. 68-15 through 68-17), particularly Code Ann. §68-1613. The cited cases did not involve controlled intersections, nor had the Uniform Act been enacted when they were decided. They are what have been called examples of the application of the "equal rights clause” as between motorists and pedestrians (Shelton v. Rose, 116 Ga. App. 37 (156 SE2d 659)) but the "equal rights referred to are rights as dictated by applicable traffic regulations, including those pertaining to right of way.” *624Shelton v. Rose, 116 Ga. App. 37, 39, supra. (Emphasis supplied.) Hence, it is error to charge the "equal rights” doctrine as between motorist and pedestrian where the applicable traffic regulations provide otherwise (Taylor v. Crawford, 119 Ga. App. 262 (167 SE2d 404)) and, similarly, it is error to charge on traffic regulations relative to the respective rights of pedestrians and motorists where the regulation charged is not applicable to the situation under investigation. Wells v. Alderman, 117 Ga. App. 724 (162 SE2d 18), especially Divisions 2, 5 and 7.
In the instant case one of the primary issues was whether pedestrian or motorist had the right of way under Code Ann. § 68-1613. The evidence was in conflict as to this issue. The trial court, however, in effect eliminated this issue by charging that the motorist and the pedestrian had equal rights; that the pedestrian need not be continually looking and listening; that the pedestrian had a right to cross as she did; and that the motorist was bound to anticipate her crossing.
The Uniform Traffic Control Act (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., p. 556 et seq; Code Ann. § 68-1655), provides that: "Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic control at intersections as provided in § 68-1613 . . .” In § 68-1613 it is provided by subsection (b) (2) that "No pedestrian facing such signal shall enter the roadway until the green or 'Go’ is shown alone, unless authorized so to do by a pedestrian 'Walk’ signal,” and in subsection (a) (2) that "Pedestrians facing the [green or 'Go’] signal may proceed across the roadway within any marked or unmarked crosswalk.”
Similar provisions are included as to vehicles facing green or "Go” signals and red or "Stop” signals.
These statutory provisions for controlled intersections supersede any prior inconsistent law, whether statutory or court ruling, dealing with this subject matter.
What is the purpose of having a controlled intersection? Obviously, it is to regulate and control the flow of all traffic—pedestrians, motor vehicles, bicycles, or whatever. To do this the law provides that all traffic moving on one of *625the intersecting streets is to move through the intersection when the traffic light is green, and all traffic approaching the intersection must stop when the traffic light is red. It applies to all alike. Thus all traffic does have equal rights in the intersection so long as they are in observance of the traffic control system. If this is done there will be no collision, for the red and the green lights come in alternating periods. It is green for one street while it is red for the other. The vice in the charge is that it provides "equal rights” to pedestrians with vehicles at all times—without regard to the status of the control system. If that is permitted, chaos may result at every city street intersection.
It is undisputed that the plaintiff was in the crosswalk of the intersection, but there was dispute as to who had the green and red light for moving or stopping in traffic. This was the issue that the jury should resolve. If it should find that plaintiff had a green light, she was entitled to move across the street while the defendant, having a red light, was not, and vice versa. They do not have "equal rights” to move into the intersection at the same time.
It is reversible error, where the incident occurs at a controlled intersection, to charge rules of law which have no application at controlled intersections. Strong v. Palmour, 113 Ga. App. 750, 752 (149 SE2d 745). It is error to charge rules relative to pedestrian and motorist which are inapplicable, Wells v. Alderman, and Taylor v. Crawford, both supra. A motorist having the right of way at a controlled intersection, which the jury was authorized to find to have been the case, can assume that others will yield. Lindsay v. Duvall, 122 Ga. App. 613 (178 SE2d 312). It is also error because "One who is rightfully using the highway or street [which the jury was authorized, though not required, to find the motorist was doing] has a right to the use thereof superior to that of one violating the traffic regulations [which the jury was authorized, though not required, to find the plaintiff was doing], and in the absence of knowledge is not required to anticipate that some other unlawful use will be made thereof in violation of the rule of the road and thus *626create a dangerous situation.” Greenlee v. Chastain, 112 Ga. App. 813 (1) (146 SE2d 378). And it is error because the trial court in effect instructed the jury that the plaintiff pedestrian had superior rights, when that was a question of fact for jury resolution primarily under Code Ann. § 68-1613. The fact that the court also charged Code Ann. §§ 68-1613, 68-1655, and other correct principles does not cure the error. Strong v. Palmour, 113 Ga. App. 750, 754, supra; Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention v. Ferguson, 213 Ga. 441, 443 (99 SE2d 150).
That the court may have charged on the duty of all, including pedestrians, to observe the traffic regulations, and that when facing a red or stop signal he should wait until the green or go signal appears to go does not relieve the error of charging that pedestrians have "equal rights” with vehicles in the streets in the context of Eubanks v. Mullis, 51 Ga. App. 728, supra, Claxton v. Hooks, 68 Ga. App. 383, supra, which antedate the Uniform Traffic Control Act. "A charge embodying an erroneous principle and one which has a tendency to injure the losing party is not cured by a subsequent instruction embodying a correct statement of the law, when attention, is not called to the previous charge. A charge containing two distinct propositions directly conflicting the one with the other is calculated to leave the jury in such a confused condition of mind that they can not render an intelligent verdict.” Morris v. Warlick, 118 Ga. 421 (2) (45 SE 407); Bryant v. State, 191 Ga. 686, 719 (13 SE2d 820); Grooms v. Grooms, 141 Ga. 478 (81 SE 210); Pelham Mfg. Co. v. Powell, 6 Ga. App. 308, 313 (64 SE 1116); Western & A. R. Co. v. Clark, 117 Ga. 548 (44 SE 1); Savannah, Fla. & Western R. Co. v. Hatcher, 118 Ga. 273 (45 SE 239); Savannah Electric Co. v. McClelland, 128 Ga. 87 (57 SE 91); Tietjen v. Meldrim, 169 Ga. 678 (151 SE 349).
There is nothing in Leggett v. Brewton, 104 Ga. App. 580 (122 SE2d 469) that conflicts with what we say here. In that case we were dealing with a collision between two vehicles at an uncontrolled intersection, and the matter of whether there had been error in refusing to give a re*627quested charge, abstractly correct, in its exact language.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Hall and Judge Pannell concur in this dissent.