History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tatum v. Pruitt
107 Ga. App. 172
Ga. Ct. App.
1962
Check Treatment
Eberhardt, Judge.

We can find nothing in the evidence to support a finding of gross negligence against the Tatums. The only act of negligence supported, as we see it, is a possible exceeding of the city speed limit. That alone is not enough. Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 132 Ga. 812, 817 (65 SE 131); Peavy v. Peavy, 36 Ga. App. 202, 205 (136 SE 96); Hopkins v. Sipe, 58 Ga. App. 511, 513 (199 SE 246); Fletcher v. Abbott, 92 Ga. App. 364, 370 (88 SE2d 445) (dissenting opinion).

Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and the judgment is reversed with direction that a judgment non obstante veredicto be granted as to plaintiffs in error.

Judgment reversed with direction.

Carlisle, P. J., and Bus-sell, J., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Tatum v. Pruitt
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Date Published: Sep 20, 1962
Citation: 107 Ga. App. 172
Docket Number: 39738
Court Abbreviation: Ga. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Log In