Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Austin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Austin

41 S.E. 40, 114 Ga. 905, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 828

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 11, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 S.E. 40 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Austin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Austin, 41 S.E. 40, 114 Ga. 905, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 828 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

Mrs. Austin brought suit against the Central of Georgia Railway Company for damages for the homicide of her son, who had been, up to the time of his death, an employee of the •defendant company. On the trial the jury returned a verdict in her favor. The company moved for a new trial, the judge overruled the motion, and the movant excepted. Under the view we take of the case it is unnecessary to notice any of the many allegations of •error made in the motion for a new trial, except that the verdict .is contrary to law and the evidence. After a careful reading and study of the brief of evidence, we have come to the conclusion that, even if the deceased was without fault, the defendant was not shown to have been negligent. The evidence for the plaintiff fails to sustain any of the allegations of negligence on the part of the defend.ant, and the evidence for the defendant demonstrates that it was not guilty of any negligence whatever causing the death of the de•ceased or contributing thereto. This being true, the verdict was without evidence to support it and was contrary to law.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little, J., absent.

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

Simmons, C. J.

Mrs. Austin brought suit against the Central of Georgia Railway Company for damages for the homicide of her son, who had been, up to the time of his death, an employee of the •defendant company. On the trial the jury returned a verdict in her favor. The company moved for a new trial, the judge overruled the motion, and the movant excepted. Under the view we take of the case it is unnecessary to notice any of the many allegations of •error made in the motion for a new trial, except that the verdict .is contrary to law and the evidence. After a careful reading and study of the brief of evidence, we have come to the conclusion that, even if the deceased was without fault, the defendant was not shown to have been negligent. The evidence for the plaintiff fails to sustain any of the allegations of negligence on the part of the defend.ant, and the evidence for the defendant demonstrates that it was not guilty of any negligence whatever causing the death of the de•ceased or contributing thereto. This being true, the verdict was without evidence to support it and was contrary to law.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E. 40, 114 Ga. 905, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-austin-ga-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack