Eubanks v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Eubanks v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

79 S.E. 488, 13 Ga. App. 562, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 257

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 7, 1913

Docket4830

StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 488 (Eubanks v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) 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

Eubanks v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 79 S.E. 488, 13 Ga. App. 562, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 257 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

The jury were authorized to infer that the plaintiff’s minor son was killed by the running of the locomotive and ears of the defendant company; and, therefore, the statutory presumption of negligence as charged in the petition was raised against the company. The defendant company introduced evidence tending to rebut this presumption. The evidence was not of such probative weight and effect as clearly to rebut the presumption of negligence and leave the question to be determined as one of law. The direction of a verdict for the defendant was therefore erroneous. Civil Code (1910), § 5926; Davis v. Kirkland, 1 Ga. App. 5 (58 S. E. 209); Ellenberg v. Southern Ry. Co., 5 Ga. App. 389 (63 S. E. 240); Bryson v. Southern Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 407 (59 S. E. 1124).

Judgment reversed.

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

Hill, C. J.

The jury were authorized to infer that the plaintiff’s minor son was killed by the running of the locomotive and ears of the defendant company; and, therefore, the statutory presumption of negligence as charged in the petition was raised against the company. The defendant company introduced evidence tending to rebut this presumption. The evidence was not of such probative weight and effect as clearly to rebut the presumption of negligence and leave the question to be determined as one of law. The direction of a verdict for the defendant was therefore erroneous. Civil Code (1910), § 5926; Davis v. Kirkland, 1 Ga. App. 5 (58 S. E. 209); Ellenberg v. Southern Ry. Co., 5 Ga. App. 389 (63 S. E. 240); Bryson v. Southern Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 407 (59 S. E. 1124).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 488, 13 Ga. App. 562, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eubanks-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack