Cavanaugh v. Biggin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cavanaugh v. Biggin

71 S.E. 779, 9 Ga. App. 466, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 182

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 29, 1911

Docket2932

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 779 (Cavanaugh v. Biggin) 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

Cavanaugh v. Biggin, 71 S.E. 779, 9 Ga. App. 466, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 182 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hiia, C. J.

1. Where three separate and distinct acts of negligence are relied upon for a recovery, it is not necessary to a recovery that proof should be made of each and all, if the defendant’s liability to respond in damages would be shown by establishing the commission of one or more of them; and in such a case it was not error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff proved the negligence of the defendant in one or more of the ways stated in his petition, and such act was the proximate cause of the injury, the plaintiff could recover. Savannah Ry. Co. v. Evans, 121 Ga. 392 (5), (49 N. E. 308).

2. In a suit to recover damages for personal injuries, where the plaintiff contends, and the evidence introduced in his behalf supports his contention, that he is entitled to recover full damages, as being entirely without fault, and the defendant, on the contrary, insists that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages at all, because the defendant was without fault, and the injuries complained of were due entirely to the negligence of the plaintiff, and the evidence introduced in behalf of the defendant tends to establish this theory, the law of comparative negligence or diminution of damages is not necessarily anplieable, and there was no error in the failure of the court to submit to the jury the law relating to this subject, in the absence of any request. Hill v. Callahan, 82 Ga. 109 (2), (8 S. E. 730) ; Southern Ry. Co. v. Hooper, 110 Ga. 779 (2), (36 S. E. 232).

3. The pertinent written requests to charge were substantially covered by- the general charge, and the charge as a whole was a full, clear, - and correct presentation of the law applicable to every issue made by the pleadings and the evidence.

4. The controlling issues in the case were questions of fact. The evidence in behalf of the plaintiff entitled him to recover, and the damages awarded by the jury were fair and reasonable, and no reason whatever appears for granting another trial. ' Judgment affirmed.

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

Hiia, C. J.

1. Where three separate and distinct acts of negligence are relied upon for a recovery, it is not necessary to a recovery that proof should be made of each and all, if the defendant’s liability to respond in damages would be shown by establishing the commission of one or more of them; and in such a case it was not error for the trial judge to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff proved the negligence of the defendant in one or more of the ways stated in his petition, and such act was the proximate cause of the injury, the plaintiff could recover. Savannah Ry. Co. v. Evans, 121 Ga. 392 (5), (49 N. E. 308).

2. In a suit to recover damages for personal injuries, where the plaintiff contends, and the evidence introduced in his behalf supports his contention, that he is entitled to recover full damages, as being entirely without fault, and the defendant, on the contrary, insists that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages at all, because the defendant was without fault, and the injuries complained of were due entirely to the negligence of the plaintiff, and the evidence introduced in behalf of the defendant tends to establish this theory, the law of comparative negligence or diminution of damages is not necessarily anplieable, and there was no error in the failure of the court to submit to the jury the law relating to this subject, in the absence of any request. Hill v. Callahan, 82 Ga. 109 (2), (8 S. E. 730) ; Southern Ry. Co. v. Hooper, 110 Ga. 779 (2), (36 S. E. 232).

3. The pertinent written requests to charge were substantially covered by- the general charge, and the charge as a whole was a full, clear, - and correct presentation of the law applicable to every issue made by the pleadings and the evidence.

4. The controlling issues in the case were questions of fact. The evidence in behalf of the plaintiff entitled him to recover, and the damages awarded by the jury were fair and reasonable, and no reason whatever appears for granting another trial. ' Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 779, 9 Ga. App. 466, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cavanaugh-v-biggin-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack