Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hixon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hixon

97 S.E. 554, 23 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 67

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 23, 1918

Docket9824

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E. 554 (Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hixon) 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

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hixon, 97 S.E. 554, 23 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 67 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. This was an action for the negligent homicide of the plaintiff’s husband, an employee of the defendant railroad company, [106]*106and was'brought under the Federal employer’s liability act. There was consequently no presumption of negligence against the defendant. The evidence introduced, viewed' in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, d'id not authorize a finding that the defendant was guilty of any of the several acts of negligence specified in the amended petition. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff was therefore contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided November 23, 1918.

Action for damages; from Taliaferro superior court—Judge Walker. May 22, 1918.

Samuel H. Sibley, for plaintiff in error. C. H. Cohen, J. P. Stephens, A. G. Golucke, contra.

2. The ruling in the preceding note being controlling in the case, a discussion of the remaining assignments of error is unnecessary.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. This was an action for the negligent homicide of the plaintiff’s husband, an employee of the defendant railroad company, [106]*106and was'brought under the Federal employer’s liability act. There was consequently no presumption of negligence against the defendant. The evidence introduced, viewed' in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, d'id not authorize a finding that the defendant was guilty of any of the several acts of negligence specified in the amended petition. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff was therefore contrary to law and the evidence, and the court erred in overruling the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided November 23, 1918.

Action for damages; from Taliaferro superior court—Judge Walker. May 22, 1918.

Samuel H. Sibley, for plaintiff in error. C. H. Cohen, J. P. Stephens, A. G. Golucke, contra.

2. The ruling in the preceding note being controlling in the case, a discussion of the remaining assignments of error is unnecessary.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 554, 23 Ga. App. 105, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-nashville-railroad-v-hixon-gactapp-1918.