Bunkley v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bunkley v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

82 S.E. 635, 15 Ga. App. 92, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 26

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 1, 1914

Docket5370

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 635 (Bunkley v. Central of Georgia Railway 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

Bunkley v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 82 S.E. 635, 15 Ga. App. 92, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 26 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

No error of law is assigned, and the evidence did not

demand a verdict for the plaintiff, especially since it was not made to appear that he did not know of the defects in the grounds surrounding the defendant’s depot. 'It was the duty of the defendant to maintain the approaches to its depot in such condition as to secure the safety of its passengers; but the controlling question in this ease was whether the plaintiff, even if he were unfamiliar with the defects in the yard of the defendant, might not, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided all injury to himself. There are circumstances sufficient to support the finding in favor of the defendant upon this issue; and the jury’s finding, having been approved by the trial judge, will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Russell, C. J.

No error of law is assigned, and the evidence did not

demand a verdict for the plaintiff, especially since it was not made to appear that he did not know of the defects in the grounds surrounding the defendant’s depot. 'It was the duty of the defendant to maintain the approaches to its depot in such condition as to secure the safety of its passengers; but the controlling question in this ease was whether the plaintiff, even if he were unfamiliar with the defects in the yard of the defendant, might not, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided all injury to himself. There are circumstances sufficient to support the finding in favor of the defendant upon this issue; and the jury’s finding, having been approved by the trial judge, will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 635, 15 Ga. App. 92, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunkley-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1914.