Bashinski v. Williams Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bashinski v. Williams Co.

90 S.E. 223, 18 Ga. App. 646, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1162

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 4, 1916

Docket7271

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 223 (Bashinski v. Williams Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bashinski v. Williams Co., 90 S.E. 223, 18 Ga. App. 646, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1162 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. There was evidence submitted which, would have authorized a finding that the bailment was one for hire. The court therefore erred in assuming as a matter of law that the bailment was a gratuitous one, and in so charging the jury, and in instructing them that the defendant bailee would be liable for gross negligence only. The jury should have been instructed that if they found the bailment to be for hire, the burden of proof would be upon the defendant company to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had exercised ordinary care and diligence.

2. The error discussed above does not, however, require a new trial of the case; for while ordinarily it would have been a question for the jury to detennine whether the defendant company had successfully carried the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was not guilty of ordinary neglect, yet as all of the evidence submitted on this issue demanded a finding that the defendant had used ordinary [647]*647care and diligence, the verdict returned in favor of the defendant was the only legal finding possible, and will therefore be upheld, notwithstanding the error in the charge.

Decided October 4, 1916.

Trover; from city court of Macon — Judge Hodges. February 4, 1916.

Sam B. Hunter, Feagin & Hancoclc, for plaintiff. Hall & Grice, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Hodges, J., disqualified.

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

Broyles, J.

1. There was evidence submitted which, would have authorized a finding that the bailment was one for hire. The court therefore erred in assuming as a matter of law that the bailment was a gratuitous one, and in so charging the jury, and in instructing them that the defendant bailee would be liable for gross negligence only. The jury should have been instructed that if they found the bailment to be for hire, the burden of proof would be upon the defendant company to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had exercised ordinary care and diligence.

2. The error discussed above does not, however, require a new trial of the case; for while ordinarily it would have been a question for the jury to detennine whether the defendant company had successfully carried the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it was not guilty of ordinary neglect, yet as all of the evidence submitted on this issue demanded a finding that the defendant had used ordinary [647]*647care and diligence, the verdict returned in favor of the defendant was the only legal finding possible, and will therefore be upheld, notwithstanding the error in the charge.

Decided October 4, 1916.

Trover; from city court of Macon — Judge Hodges. February 4, 1916.

Sam B. Hunter, Feagin & Hancoclc, for plaintiff. Hall & Grice, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Hodges, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 223, 18 Ga. App. 646, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bashinski-v-williams-co-gactapp-1916.