Booker v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Booker v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

304 S.E.2d 446, 166 Ga. App. 271, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2133

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1983

Docket65406

StatusPublished

This text of 304 S.E.2d 446 (Booker v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) 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

Booker v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 304 S.E.2d 446, 166 Ga. App. 271, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2133 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Booker sued MARTA for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell to the floor of the bus upon which he had been riding. The jury returned a verdict in favor of MARTA and Booker appeals.

Appellant’s sole enumeration of error is the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on the failure to give his requested charge in the language of Code Ann. § 68-710 (no OCGA citation). This code section raises a presumption of negligence on the part of MARTA which can be rebutted by proof that there was no negligence. Once the negligence is disproved, the presumption vanishes and the burden shifts to the injured party to introduce other evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier. Gillem v. MARTA, 160 Ga. App. 393, 394 (287 SE2d 264) (1981). Where there is evidence tending to rebut the presumption raised by the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-710, failure to charge its provisions is not error. Brown v. Kirkland, 108 Ga. App. 651 (2) (134 SE2d 472) (1963). Appellant does not contend that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption and we find no error in the trial court’s refusing to give the requested *272 charge.

Decided April 12, 1983. E. Graydon Shuford, for appellant. Donald P. Edwards, Iva D. Booker, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Booker sued MARTA for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell to the floor of the bus upon which he had been riding. The jury returned a verdict in favor of MARTA and Booker appeals.

Appellant’s sole enumeration of error is the trial court’s denial of his motion for a new trial based on the failure to give his requested charge in the language of Code Ann. § 68-710 (no OCGA citation). This code section raises a presumption of negligence on the part of MARTA which can be rebutted by proof that there was no negligence. Once the negligence is disproved, the presumption vanishes and the burden shifts to the injured party to introduce other evidence of negligence on the part of the carrier. Gillem v. MARTA, 160 Ga. App. 393, 394 (287 SE2d 264) (1981). Where there is evidence tending to rebut the presumption raised by the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-710, failure to charge its provisions is not error. Brown v. Kirkland, 108 Ga. App. 651 (2) (134 SE2d 472) (1963). Appellant does not contend that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption and we find no error in the trial court’s refusing to give the requested *272 charge.

Decided April 12, 1983. E. Graydon Shuford, for appellant. Donald P. Edwards, Iva D. Booker, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 S.E.2d 446, 166 Ga. App. 271, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/booker-v-metropolitan-atlanta-rapid-transit-authority-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack