Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Hatcher

Supreme Court of Georgia

Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Hatcher

43 S.E. 49, 116 Ga. 791, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 265

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 43 S.E. 49 (Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Hatcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alabama Midland Railway Co. v. Hatcher, 43 S.E. 49, 116 Ga. 791, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 265 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Pish, J.

1. Under previous rulings of this court, ‘1 Whether the commission of, or omission to do, particular acts by a railroad company was negligence as to one who has been injured by the running and operation of a train of cars, must, as a general rule, be determined by a jury; and it is error for the judge, on the trial of a case brought to recover damages for such injuries, to charge the jury that the omission to do a certain act was negligence, when not expressly made so by law.” Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. McKenney, 116 Ga. 13, and cases cited.

2. The other charges of which complaint was made were not erroneous for any reason assigned in the petition for certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pish, J.

1. Under previous rulings of this court, ‘1 Whether the commission of, or omission to do, particular acts by a railroad company was negligence as to one who has been injured by the running and operation of a train of cars, must, as a general rule, be determined by a jury; and it is error for the judge, on the trial of a case brought to recover damages for such injuries, to charge the jury that the omission to do a certain act was negligence, when not expressly made so by law.” Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. McKenney, 116 Ga. 13, and cases cited.

2. The other charges of which complaint was made were not erroneous for any reason assigned in the petition for certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.E. 49, 116 Ga. 791, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-midland-railway-co-v-hatcher-ga-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack