From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hollis v. Lipp

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 30, 1968
164 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

43839.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 1968.

DECIDED OCTOBER 30, 1968.

Action for damages. Troup Superior Court. Before Judge Knight.

Sims Lewis, James R. Lewis, Wyatt Wyatt, L. M. Wyatt, for appellant.

E. W. Fleming, for appellee.


Defendant took this appeal from the denial of his motion for summary judgment in a suit to recover for injuries sustained when plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck down by defendant's automobile. It appeared that plaintiff was running across a street in the dark in a heavy rain, apparently without looking, and that defendant had the right of way. However, the fact that defendant did not see plaintiff until she was four or five feet in front of the vehicle, which he admitted in his deposition, was alone sufficient to indicate a jury issue on the question of his negligence in failing to maintain a proper lookout ahead. It is not necessary to discuss additional details which militate against summary judgment in this case. The trial court's denial of summary judgment was so clearly correct that it would have been preferable not to certify the decision for immediate review under Section 56 (h) of the Civil Practice Act ( Code Ann. § 81A-156 (h); Ga. L. 1967, pp. 226, 238). See Judge Deen's comments in C A Land Co. v. Wilson Constr. Corp., 117 Ga. App. 744 ( 161 S.E.2d 922) and Judge Hall's comments in Rockmart Finance Co. v. High, 118 Ga. App. 351 ( 163 S.E.2d 758).

Judgment affirmed. Hall and Quillian, JJ., concur.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 5, 1968 — DECIDED OCTOBER 30, 1968.


Summaries of

Hollis v. Lipp

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Oct 30, 1968
164 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Hollis v. Lipp

Case Details

Full title:HOLLIS v. LIPP

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Oct 30, 1968

Citations

164 S.E.2d 885 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
164 S.E.2d 885

Citing Cases

Neiswonger v. Janics

[T]he fact that [appellant] did not see [appellee] until [he] was [one car length] in front of [her] vehicle,…

Conner v. Mangum

Hence, the only lawful crosswalk is that defined by § 68-1504(3) (a), and there is no evidence in this record…