Bugg v. Huffman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bugg v. Huffman

127 S.E. 657, 33 Ga. App. 630, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 656

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1925

Docket16060

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 657 (Bugg v. Huffman) 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

Bugg v. Huffman, 127 S.E. 657, 33 Ga. App. 630, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

This being a suit against a railroad company, to recover damages for injuries to stock belonging to the plaintiff, and it being clearly inferable from the evidence that the stock were injured by a train of the defendant and were of the value found in the verdict for the plaintiff, and the evidence being conflicting as to whether, at the time of the injury to the stock, the engineer’s vision was so obscured by rain that the stock could not be seen by him in time to avert the injury, although the injury happened in the nighttime, and the evidence further authorizing the inference that the engineer could, by the exercise of due care, have observed the dangerous situation of the stock in time to prevent the injury, the verdict found for the plaintiff was authorized. The cases of Ga. R. & Banking Co. v. Wall, 80 Ga. 202 (7 S. E. 639), and Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Thomas, 10 Ga. App. 45 (72 S. E. 514), are clearly distinguishable.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., condors. Bell, J., disqtoalified.

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

Stephens, J.

This being a suit against a railroad company, to recover damages for injuries to stock belonging to the plaintiff, and it being clearly inferable from the evidence that the stock were injured by a train of the defendant and were of the value found in the verdict for the plaintiff, and the evidence being conflicting as to whether, at the time of the injury to the stock, the engineer’s vision was so obscured by rain that the stock could not be seen by him in time to avert the injury, although the injury happened in the nighttime, and the evidence further authorizing the inference that the engineer could, by the exercise of due care, have observed the dangerous situation of the stock in time to prevent the injury, the verdict found for the plaintiff was authorized. The cases of Ga. R. & Banking Co. v. Wall, 80 Ga. 202 (7 S. E. 639), and Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Thomas, 10 Ga. App. 45 (72 S. E. 514), are clearly distinguishable.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., condors. Bell, J., disqtoalified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 657, 33 Ga. App. 630, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bugg-v-huffman-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack