Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Barfield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Barfield

63 S.E. 514, 5 Ga. App. 423, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 8

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1909

Docket1240

StatusPublished

This text of 63 S.E. 514 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Barfield) 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

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Barfield, 63 S.E. 514, 5 Ga. App. 423, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The rules of law illustrating the three issues of negligence made by the evidence,— (1) whether the plaintiff was, at the time of his injury, a trespasser; (2) whether he was a licensee; and (3) the relative negligence of both plaintiif and defendant, — were fully, clearly, and accurately submitted to the jury.

2. There is evidence to support the verdict, whether the plaintiff was a trespasser, or a licensee, or was himself guilty of such contributory negligence as was. sufficient to reduce the amount of his damages, though not sufficient, in connection with the greater negligence of the defendant,, to defeat his recovery.

3. The two special assignments of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The rules of law illustrating the three issues of negligence made by the evidence,— (1) whether the plaintiff was, at the time of his injury, a trespasser; (2) whether he was a licensee; and (3) the relative negligence of both plaintiif and defendant, — were fully, clearly, and accurately submitted to the jury.

2. There is evidence to support the verdict, whether the plaintiff was a trespasser, or a licensee, or was himself guilty of such contributory negligence as was. sufficient to reduce the amount of his damages, though not sufficient, in connection with the greater negligence of the defendant,, to defeat his recovery.

3. The two special assignments of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E. 514, 5 Ga. App. 423, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-barfield-gactapp-1909.