Dempsey v. City of Rome

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dempsey v. City of Rome

27 S.E. 668, 99 Ga. 192

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 27, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 S.E. 668 (Dempsey v. City of Rome) 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

Dempsey v. City of Rome, 27 S.E. 668, 99 Ga. 192 (Ga. 1896).

Pincite

Opinions

Simmons, C. J.

1. Although a charge to the effect that if a physical injury to the plaintiff resulted from the mutual negligence of ‘both parties, and that if the plaintiff contributed “three fourths or on© third or some other amount to the injury,” his recovery would be reduced by the amount of his default, was, under the ruling of 'this court in Central Railroad Company v. Newman, 94 Ga. 560, incorrect, yet where the only complaint made of such charge is, that it was erroneous because “any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff would defeat a recovery,” the giving of such charge is not cause for a new trial.

2. This court having decided when this case was before it at the March term, 1894, that it was error to grant a nonsuit, and the plaintiff’s evidence at the trial now under review being substantially the same as at the first trial, and one new trial having since then been granted by the 'trial court, it was error for that court to grant a second new trial, it appearing that the case really turned upon the credibility of witnesses, that the jury believed those introduced for the plaintiff,- and that their evidence was amply sufficient to warrant a recovery.

Judgment reversed.

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

Simmons, C. J.

1. Although a charge to the effect that if a physical injury to the plaintiff resulted from the mutual negligence of ‘both parties, and that if the plaintiff contributed “three fourths or on© third or some other amount to the injury,” his recovery would be reduced by the amount of his default, was, under the ruling of 'this court in Central Railroad Company v. Newman, 94 Ga. 560, incorrect, yet where the only complaint made of such charge is, that it was erroneous because “any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff would defeat a recovery,” the giving of such charge is not cause for a new trial.

2. This court having decided when this case was before it at the March term, 1894, that it was error to grant a nonsuit, and the plaintiff’s evidence at the trial now under review being substantially the same as at the first trial, and one new trial having since then been granted by the 'trial court, it was error for that court to grant a second new trial, it appearing that the case really turned upon the credibility of witnesses, that the jury believed those introduced for the plaintiff,- and that their evidence was amply sufficient to warrant a recovery.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.E. 668, 99 Ga. 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dempsey-v-city-of-rome-ga-1896.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack