LINDA DIANE HERRINGDINE AND JOSEPH R. HERRINGDINE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CAROLYN ANN ROOF BARGER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence and conflicts therein were properly for the jury's resolution, and the jury charge errors assigned were insufficient to justify reversal.
This personal injury case arose from a head-on automobile collision on a sunny day near the crest of a hill on a paved road. The jury found for the gu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Gross Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
This is a personal injury case, arising from an automobile collision on the public highway. The verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court went for the guest in one car, against both her driver-hostess and the operator of the other vehicle.
The automobiles collided, head to head, on a sunny day, in open country, near the crest of a hill, on a paved road twenty feet wide with no center stripe. Other than the occupants there were no eyewitnesses. This setting spawned the customary dispute in such cases: who did what (and when), with all defendants claiming lack of negligence, ordinary or gross.
The operator-defendants-concede, as they must, that under Georgia law such issues ordinarily are for the jury. Beyond that they agree on little, if anything. The chief aspect of the struggle is that, where possible, each driver blames the other for what happened. Both say that as against them the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. From our reading of the record, however, we experience no uncertainty that the evidence and the conflicts in the evidence were properly for the resolution of a jury.
The driver with whom the appellee was riding assigns four additional errors, all directed to errors or omissions in the jury charge. While this attack has been pressed with admirable ingenuity and energy, it is our considered appraisal, without extended discussion, that they cannot, with reason, prevail to the extent of justifying reversal.
The same must be said as to the eight assignments asserted on behalf of the driver of the other automobile.
Affirmed.