Lawrence v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lawrence v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.

71 S.E. 593, 9 Ga. App. 309, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 530

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 7, 1911

Docket2815

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 593 (Lawrence v. Georgia Railway & Electric 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

Lawrence v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 71 S.E. 593, 9 Ga. App. 309, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 530 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. When a petition sets forth specific allegations of negligence, hut also includes a general allegation of negligence, the specific will he considered as amplification of the general, and the plaintiff's right of recovery depends upon the establishment of negligence on one [310]*310or more of tlie specific particulars alleged. Palmer Brick Co. v. Chenall, 119 Ga. 837 (6), (47 S. E. 329).

Decided June 7, 1911.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. June 24, 1910.

Anderson, Felder, Rountree & Wilson, for plaintiff. Qolquitt & Gonyers, for defendant.

2. When a petition asserting a right of action for personal injuries makes two particular and distinct specifications of negligence, and follows these with the words, “and in causing the accidents and injuries to plaintiff under the facts and circumstances heretofore alleged,” this language should be treated as a mere general allegation of negligence within the purview of tlie rule stated in the foregoing headnote. Harris v. Southern Ry. Co., 129 Ga. 388, 391 (58 S. E. 873).

Judgment affirmed.

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