Thе plaintiffs in error expressly abandoned their exception to the judgment overruling their special demurrers.
*146
Code Ann.
§ 68-1626 requires that the driver of every vehicle shall drive at an appropriately reduced speed when aрproaching and crossing an intersection, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hill crest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway, and when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions, so controlling speed as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle, or other conveyance оn or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. Thе petition alleges the existence of practically all of the conditions above enumeratеd, to wit: an intersection, a curve, a hill and a winding and rough surfaced roadway. The petition alleges facts which show that the plaintiff was on the street in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to usе due care; it is alleged that he brought the truck to a complete stop and did not enter the intersectiоn until he had looked both ways for oncoming traffic and had seen none. “Furthermore, the plaintiff is not required in his pеtition to negative the fact that his injury was not the result of his own failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety or that it was not the result of his own negligence. Such would be matters of affirmative defense. If the petition makes a jury case as to the defendant’s negligence, and it does not affirmatively appear therefrom that the injury resulted either from the plaintiff’s own negligence or from his failure to exercise ordinary care for his own safety upon discovery of the defendant’s negligence, the petition would not be subject to general demurrer on the ground that it does not set out a cause of action.”
Bach v. Bragg Bros. & Blackwell, Inc.,
Exception is taken to the overruling of the objections to the proposed interrogatories to be submitted to the claims manager of Cotton States Mutual Insurance Company, whereby infоrmation regarding the defendant’s insurance coverage and details of the collision are sought by the plаintiff.
Most orders requiring or denying discovery do not finally dis *147 pose of the proceeding or of any independent оffshoot of it, and are, therefore, not appealable. If a discovery order is terminative of a plenary proceeding, as an order for the perpetuation of testimony under Rule 27, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure {Ga. Code Ann. § 38-2102), it is final and appealable. If a discovery order is not complied with and noncompliance leads to an order of contempt, if the contemnor is not a party to the litigation, the order adjudging him in сontempt is final, even though it is entirely civil in character. Most discovery orders, then, are not subject to direct appeal and generally they are not reviewable by mandamus or prohibition. It has been held that no appeal will lie from an order directing a party or witness to answer interrogatories. Hartley Pen Co. v. United States District Court for Southern District of California (CA9th, 1961) 287 F2d 324, 4 FR Serv2d 34.64, case I. While the correctness of discovery orders oftеntimes has become moot by the time review is had of a final judgment in the case, they are, nevertheless, reviеwable on appeal or cross appeal from the final judgment, insofar as they are not moot аnd have not affected the correctness of that judgment. Moore, Federal Practice, Vol. 4, § 26.37 [l.-l]; Ibid., 1961 amendment, p. 592.
The order overruling the objections is therefore not reviewable under the Federal rules, nor is it made reviewable under Georgia law by the following provisions of
Code Ann.
§ 6-701: “Where bill of exceptions is permissible, all judgments, rulings, or оrders rendered in the case which are assigned as error, and which may affect the proceedings belоw, shall be reviewed and determined by the appellate court, without regard to the appeal-ability of such judgment, ruling, or order standing alone, and without regard to whether the judgment, ruling or order excepted to was final, or was subject to review by some other express provision of law contained in this section, or elsewhere.” “Our courts have recognized the general rule that to constitute either ground for a new trial or reversible еrror the ruling complained of must constitute both an error and an injury to the complaining party.” Green, Georgia Law of Evidence, 26, § 10, citing
Harrison v. Hester,
The court did not err in overruling the general demurrers to the petition.
Judgment affirmed.