Charles v. Raine

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Charles v. Raine

107 S.E.2d 566, 99 Ga. App. 1, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 751

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1959

Docket37448

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 107 S.E.2d 566 (Charles v. Raine) 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

Charles v. Raine, 107 S.E.2d 566, 99 Ga. App. 1, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 751 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

Our attention is called by counsel for the plaintiff to Lanier v. Turner, 73 Ga. App. 749, 752 (38 S. E. 2d 55) wherein this court said: “It is the established law of our State that questions of diligence and negligence, involving comparative negligence and what negligence constitutes the proximate cause of an alleged injury, are peculiarly for the determination of the jury, and this court will not solve such questions on demurrer except in palpably clear, plain, and undisputable cases.”

It is the contention of counsel for the defendant that, after *5 the stirrup had come loose and been fixed by the servant of the defendant, the duty of knowing that the stirrup was defective then devolved upon the father of the injured child, and that, when the father allowed the child to use, the stirrup thereafter, such amounted to a plain and palpable act of negligence such as to defeat the cause of action. It is our opinion that the question here presented is for the determination of a jury as to whose negligence and what negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Even if the father was negligent (which we certainly do not concede) such negligence would not be imputable to the child. 'See Code § 105-205 which states in part: “. . . In a suit by an infant the fault of the parent, or of custodians selected by the parents, is not imputable to the child.” See also A. B. & C. Railroad Co. v. Loftin, 67 Ga. App. 601 (21 S. E. 2d 290). In Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coxwell, 93 Ga. App. 159 (91 S. E. 2d 135) this court by a unanimous decision of the full bench of six judges, overruled practically all of the cases cited by counsel for the defendant including the following: Brinson v. Davis, 32 Ga. App. 37 (122 S. E. 643); Carroll v. Georgia Power Co., 47 Ga. App. 518 (171 S. E. 208); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Patterson, 77 Ga. App. 406 (49 S. E. 2d 218).

In support of our position affirming the, case at bar see Butner v. Lord, 95 Ga. App. 782 (98 S. E. 2d 646).

Under the pleadings as depicted by this record, the trial court did not err in overruling the general or special demurrers for any of the reasons assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

Our attention is called by counsel for the plaintiff to Lanier v. Turner, 73 Ga. App. 749, 752 (38 S. E. 2d 55) wherein this court said: “It is the established law of our State that questions of diligence and negligence, involving comparative negligence and what negligence constitutes the proximate cause of an alleged injury, are peculiarly for the determination of the jury, and this court will not solve such questions on demurrer except in palpably clear, plain, and undisputable cases.”

It is the contention of counsel for the defendant that, after *5 the stirrup had come loose and been fixed by the servant of the defendant, the duty of knowing that the stirrup was defective then devolved upon the father of the injured child, and that, when the father allowed the child to use, the stirrup thereafter, such amounted to a plain and palpable act of negligence such as to defeat the cause of action. It is our opinion that the question here presented is for the determination of a jury as to whose negligence and what negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. Even if the father was negligent (which we certainly do not concede) such negligence would not be imputable to the child. 'See Code § 105-205 which states in part: “. . . In a suit by an infant the fault of the parent, or of custodians selected by the parents, is not imputable to the child.” See also A. B. & C. Railroad Co. v. Loftin, 67 Ga. App. 601 (21 S. E. 2d 290). In Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coxwell, 93 Ga. App. 159 (91 S. E. 2d 135) this court by a unanimous decision of the full bench of six judges, overruled practically all of the cases cited by counsel for the defendant including the following: Brinson v. Davis, 32 Ga. App. 37 (122 S. E. 643); Carroll v. Georgia Power Co., 47 Ga. App. 518 (171 S. E. 208); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Patterson, 77 Ga. App. 406 (49 S. E. 2d 218).

In support of our position affirming the, case at bar see Butner v. Lord, 95 Ga. App. 782 (98 S. E. 2d 646).

Under the pleadings as depicted by this record, the trial court did not err in overruling the general or special demurrers for any of the reasons assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E.2d 566, 99 Ga. App. 1, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-v-raine-gactapp-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack