Lanier v. Turner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lanier v. Turner

42 S.E.2d 246, 75 Ga. App. 119, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 489

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1947

Docket31549.

StatusPublished

This text of 42 S.E.2d 246 (Lanier v. Turner) 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

Lanier v. Turner, 42 S.E.2d 246, 75 Ga. App. 119, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

Where in an action for personal injuries and property damage it is alleged that the damages were the direct and proximate result of certain acts of negligence, and the evidence does not demand a verdict for the plaintiff, hut is conflicting as to whether the alleged negligence existed, and whether it was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and whether the plaintiff could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence by the exercise of ordinary care, this court will not set aside the judgment of the court below overruling a motion for new trial, based solely on the general grounds, as these are questions of fact for the determination of the jury except in plain, palpable and indisputable eases. Pollard v. Hagan, 60 Ga. App. 581 (4 S. E. 2d, 477), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

Where in an action for personal injuries and property damage it is alleged that the damages were the direct and proximate result of certain acts of negligence, and the evidence does not demand a verdict for the plaintiff, hut is conflicting as to whether the alleged negligence existed, and whether it was the direct and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and whether the plaintiff could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence by the exercise of ordinary care, this court will not set aside the judgment of the court below overruling a motion for new trial, based solely on the general grounds, as these are questions of fact for the determination of the jury except in plain, palpable and indisputable eases. Pollard v. Hagan, 60 Ga. App. 581 (4 S. E. 2d, 477), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 S.E.2d 246, 75 Ga. App. 119, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanier-v-turner-gactapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack