Lytle v. Hancock County

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lytle v. Hancock County

91 S.E. 219, 19 Ga. App. 193, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 58

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1917

Docket7725

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 219 (Lytle v. Hancock County) 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

Lytle v. Hancock County, 91 S.E. 219, 19 Ga. App. 193, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. The negligence of a chauffeur, in failing to avoid danger while driving his master in an automobile, is imputable to the master. Read v. City &c. Railway Co., 115 Ga. 366 (41 S. E. 629).

2. The great preponderance of the evidence was to the effect that the county bridge, on which the plaintiff’s automobile was being driven at the time of the injury sued for, was in a reasonably safe condition, and that her injuries were caused solely by the negligence of her employee and chauffeur, in driving the automobile at a reckless and high rate of speed upon and over the bridge, which, like all other such bridges, slightly sagged in the middle; and that the same chauffeur had often driven over this bridge and was well acquainted with its condition at the time of the injury. The evidence as a whole strongly authorized the verdict returned' for the defendant.

3 There were slight errors in the two excerpts from the charge of the court excepted to, but, under the facts of the case, they were harmless and do not require a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. The negligence of a chauffeur, in failing to avoid danger while driving his master in an automobile, is imputable to the master. Read v. City &c. Railway Co., 115 Ga. 366 (41 S. E. 629).

2. The great preponderance of the evidence was to the effect that the county bridge, on which the plaintiff’s automobile was being driven at the time of the injury sued for, was in a reasonably safe condition, and that her injuries were caused solely by the negligence of her employee and chauffeur, in driving the automobile at a reckless and high rate of speed upon and over the bridge, which, like all other such bridges, slightly sagged in the middle; and that the same chauffeur had often driven over this bridge and was well acquainted with its condition at the time of the injury. The evidence as a whole strongly authorized the verdict returned' for the defendant.

3 There were slight errors in the two excerpts from the charge of the court excepted to, but, under the facts of the case, they were harmless and do not require a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 219, 19 Ga. App. 193, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lytle-v-hancock-county-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack