Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Betsill

160 S.E. 663, 44 Ga. App. 219, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 636
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided October 17, 1931·No. 21265·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Bell, J.

The present ease is distinguished from Peeples v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 37 Ga. App. 87 (139 S. E. 85), in that it appears from the instant petition that the decedent did exercise some care for his own safety; and under the facts alleged it can not be held as a matter of law that he was guilty of such negligence as to bar a recovery for his homicide. Under the rulings in Southern Railway Co. v. Slaton, 41 Ga. App. 759 (3) (154 S. E. 718), and the authorities there cited, the petition set forth a cause of action, and the court properly overruled the general demurrer. See also Clements v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., [220]*22041 Ga. App. 310 (152 S. E. 849) ; Hadaway v. Southern Ry. Co., 41 Ga. App. 669 (154 S. E. 296) ; Foster v. Southern Ry. Co., 42 Ga. App. 830 (157 S. E. 371).

Decided October 17, 1931. Cleveland, Goodrich & Cleveland, Mundy <& Wright, for plaintiff in error. O. J. Coogler, Hewlett & Dennis, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Betsill, 160 S.E. 663, 44 Ga. App. 219, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

160 S.E. 663 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Betsill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Leonard
176 S.E. 137 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Buffington v. Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast Railroad
169 S.E. 756 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)