Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Coatney
This text of 93 S.E. 228 (Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Coatney) 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.
Opinion
1. There was no error in overruling the general and special demurrers to the plaintiff’s petition.
2. This ease proceeded under the employer’s liability act of Congress of April 22, 1908 (35 Stat. 65, Comp. St. 1916, §§ 8657-8665); and there was no presumption of negligence against the defendant, but there was some evidence from which negligence on the part of a coemployee of the plaintiff might be inferred, and this court is unable to hold, as a matter of law, either that the injury so clearly resulted from such a want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff as. would necessarily defeat his recovery (Thornton on Federal Employers’ Liability Act (3d ed.), 153, § 192), or else from a risk of his employment assumed by him. Under all the facts and circumstances in proof, these were questions for determination by the jury.
3. After a careful examination of the record and of each of the thirty-one grounds of the motion for a new trial, this court is of the opinion that there is no such substantial merit in any one or more of the special [714]*714grounds as to require a reversal, and that there was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict against the railroad company, and nothing to indicate that the amount of the verdict ($10,000), which is alleged to be excessive, was the result of bias.or prejudice on the part of the jury.
■Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
93 S.E. 228, 20 Ga. App. 713, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-nashville-railroad-v-coatney-gactapp-1917.