Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Gill

Supreme Court of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Gill

71 S.E. 166, 136 Ga. 240, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 497

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 166 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Gill) 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. Gill, 71 S.E. 166, 136 Ga. 240, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 497 (Ga. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. This being a suit against a railroad company for damages arising from personal injuries caused by the running of the locomotives, cars, and other machinery of the company, the charge on the subject of the presumption arising from the proof of the injury, and on the subject of the various defenses which were open to the company after a prima facie case had been made against it, was in substantial accord with the rulings announced in tlie cases of Georgia Railroad Co. v. Neely, 56 Ga. 542, Central Railroad Co. v. Brinson, 64 Ga. 475, and Georgia Railroad Co. v. Thomas, 68 Ga. 744.

(а) The evidence to defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action may come from the plaintiff’s side as well as that of the defendant.

(б) The charge was not subject to the criticism that it confused the rules of law contained in sectipns 2321, 2322, and 3830 of the Civil Code of 1895.

2. Where the judge charged the law of contributory negligence and diminution of damages substantially as set out in section 2322 of the Civil Code of-1895, it furnished no ground for a new trial that the court failed, in connection with such charge, to also instruct the jury that if the parties were equally negligent there could be no recovery.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error requiring the grant of a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. This being a suit against a railroad company for damages arising from personal injuries caused by the running of the locomotives, cars, and other machinery of the company, the charge on the subject of the presumption arising from the proof of the injury, and on the subject of the various defenses which were open to the company after a prima facie case had been made against it, was in substantial accord with the rulings announced in tlie cases of Georgia Railroad Co. v. Neely, 56 Ga. 542, Central Railroad Co. v. Brinson, 64 Ga. 475, and Georgia Railroad Co. v. Thomas, 68 Ga. 744.

(а) The evidence to defeat the plaintiff’s cause of action may come from the plaintiff’s side as well as that of the defendant.

(б) The charge was not subject to the criticism that it confused the rules of law contained in sectipns 2321, 2322, and 3830 of the Civil Code of 1895.

2. Where the judge charged the law of contributory negligence and diminution of damages substantially as set out in section 2322 of the Civil Code of-1895, it furnished no ground for a new trial that the court failed, in connection with such charge, to also instruct the jury that if the parties were equally negligent there could be no recovery.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error requiring the grant of a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 166, 136 Ga. 240, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-gill-ga-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack