Houser v. Walter Ballard Optical Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Houser v. Walter Ballard Optical Co.

133 S.E.2d 924, 108 Ga. App. 559, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 703

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 25, 1963

Docket40344

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 133 S.E.2d 924 (Houser v. Walter Ballard Optical 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

Houser v. Walter Ballard Optical Co., 133 S.E.2d 924, 108 Ga. App. 559, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 703 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

The depositions of the plaintiff, the only evidence on the hearing on the motion for summary judgment by the defendants, showed no negligence on the part of either defendant, and that, if there were negligence on the part of either of the defendants, the plaintiff had knowledge of such negligence and her injury was due to her own want of ordinary care. See dissenting opinion of Judge Jenkins in Wardlaw v. Executive Comm. Baptist Convention, 47 Ga. App. 595, 596 (170 SE 830), reversed in 180 Ga. 148 (178 SE 155); Vaissiere v. Pound Hotel Co., 184 Ga. 72 (190 SE 354). The case of Boyd v. Gardner, 62 Ga. App. 662 (9 SE2d 202) is clearly distinguishable on its facts. It follows that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment of each defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

The depositions of the plaintiff, the only evidence on the hearing on the motion for summary judgment by the defendants, showed no negligence on the part of either defendant, and that, if there were negligence on the part of either of the defendants, the plaintiff had knowledge of such negligence and her injury was due to her own want of ordinary care. See dissenting opinion of Judge Jenkins in Wardlaw v. Executive Comm. Baptist Convention, 47 Ga. App. 595, 596 (170 SE 830), reversed in 180 Ga. 148 (178 SE 155); Vaissiere v. Pound Hotel Co., 184 Ga. 72 (190 SE 354). The case of Boyd v. Gardner, 62 Ga. App. 662 (9 SE2d 202) is clearly distinguishable on its facts. It follows that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment of each defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Hall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E.2d 924, 108 Ga. App. 559, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houser-v-walter-ballard-optical-co-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack