Peggy Ann of Georgia, Inc. v. Scoggins
Peggy Ann of Georgia, Inc. v. Scoggins
Opinion of the Court
In Scoggins v. Peggy Ann of Georgia, 87 Ga. App. 19, 23 (73 S. E. 2d 79), the defendant contended that the issue of defective brakes remained in the case even after amendment because of the “presumption” stated in Georgia Highway Express v. Sturkie, 62 Ga. App. 741, 746 (9 S. E. 2d 683). The second division of this court ruled against the contention. We think the correct statement of that principle is stated in Wright Contracting Co. v. Waller, 89 Ga. App. 827, 833 (2a): “This court will take judicial cognizance of the fact that, in cases not involving unusual and extraordinary conditions and circumstances, effective and efficient brakes, if properly set, will hold an automobile on an incline, in the absence of some external force being applied.” (Emphasis supplied.) If the court in Scoggins v. Peggy Ann of Georgia, supra, did not recognize the exception to the principle, then it erred in allowing the petition to stand on an allegation of a thing declared impossible by the principle. However, such ruling became the law of the case. If the court did recognize the exception to the principle, then they could have construed the plaintiffs’ allegation that the use of “scotch blocks” was the only means by which buses with efficient brakes could be held stationary on the defendant’s premises as alleging unusual and extraordinary conditions and circumstances, the exception to the principle. In either case the plaintiffs would have had to prove the same thing, i.e., that the use of “scotch blocks” was the only means of keeping buses with efficient brakes in a stationary position on the defendant’s parking area. Therefore, the only questions for consideration are: (1) did the evidence authorize a finding that Peggy Ann of Georgia, Inc., accepted the responsibility of placing “scotch blocks” under the wheels of all buses stopping on its premises in all events? and (2) did the evidence authorize a finding that the use of “scotch, blocks” was the only means whereby buses with efficient brakes could be kept at a firm standing position while parked on the' defendant’s parking area? If the answer to either of the above questions is yes, the verdict was authorized.
The pertinent evidence concerning question number (1) is as follows: F. G. Cole, president of the defendant corporation and manager of the bus stop, testified in part as follows: “As to whether or not some five, six or seven years prior to this time I had scotch blocks brought up there to this place of business;
Julius C. Newsom, the driver of the bus on which the deceased was riding at the time of her injuries, testified in part: “Yes, I scotched the bus myself. As to where I got the scotch blocks; well, you generally had to hunt one. Generally, they were laying on the bank on the right-hand side. Yes, I got one on this particular night and scotched the bus. Yes, sir, on those other occasions that I came there, I likewise scotched the bus, and I would pull up the brakes; I would pull the emergency brakes up. Yes, they were functioning properly. Yes, on the other occasions I pulled up the emergency brakes. Yes, I expect I had stopped in there 600 times before this accident, and on all of these other occasions I went in there and did just exactly what I did on this occasion, pulled up my brakes and scotched my bus, and on those occasions it held. . . I got directions to put
Charlie Jackson testified in part: “Yes, I was employed at the Peggy Ann bus stop. . . As to whether or not Mr. Jack Cole ever gave me any instructions relative to the scotching of these busses; well, I have put blocks up under them up there. Yes, sir’, I mean that I have scotched buses at times. As to who told me to put those blocks under them; well, nobody particularly told me, I just knowed to put the blocks up under them if I saw one drive up there. I knowed just about all the drivers, and I just put it under there because they had the blocks up there for them. Yes, sir, I have put them underneath them. Yes, sir, at the time I put them under them I was an employee of Peggy Ann. As to whether or not I did that because I knew the drivers, and I was out there, and I just did it as an accommodation to the drivers; well, yes, sir, to hold the bus up there. No, sir, nobody particularly told me to do it. As to who I know put them under there when I wasn’t out there; well, the drivers of the buses. When I happened to be out there and a bus come up there and stopped, as an accommodation to him, with me already on the ground, I would just put the scotch block under the wheel.”
Erwin Pruitt testified: “I work for Thompson-Weinman now. Yes, sir, I have worked for Peggy Ann bus stop. I worked up there a little over a year in all. Yes, sir, when I worked up there I saw buses coming and going up there. Yes, sir, I have saw scotch blocks up there; I signed for some of them. Knight Mercantile Company brought them up there. They brought them in a truck. I showed them where to put them. Yes, sir, I have put scotch blocks under a bus that stopped up there; I couldn’t remember the times, but I put some under them. As to whether or not anybody ever told me to put scotch blocks under buses up there; well, yes, sir, Mr. Cole told me and one of the bus supervisors, but I can’t remember his name. Yes, sir, I am
This evidence did not authorize a finding that Peggy Ann' of Georgia, Inc., accepted the responsibility of placing “scotch blocks” under the wheels of all buses stopping on its premises in all events.
The evidence pertinent to question number- (2) was as follows: Newsom, the bus driver, testified in part: “In my opinion, as to whether or not a Greyhound bus of the size I was driving that night [will] hold a firm, standing position parked where it was without the use of a scotch block; well, it should, yes, sir; I think the brakes would be sufficient- to hold it. . . Yes, I think good brakes would hold it without a scotch block.”
This evidence was insufficient to authorize a finding that the use of “scotch blocks” was the only means by which buses with efficient brakes could be held in a stationary parking position on the defendant’s parking lot. The testimony of the bus driver, “Yes, my brakes were efficient on this night,” coupled with his testimony that on the night in question he had set his brakes did not authorize the jury to reason that properly set efficient brakes did not hold the bus in this instance and infer from such reasoning that all buses with properly set efficient brakes would not hold a stationary position on the defendant’s parking area without the aid of “scotch blocks”.
The court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.