Mack v. Galbreath

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mack v. Galbreath

256 S.E.2d 151, 149 Ga. App. 856, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2057

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 8, 1979

Docket57443

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 256 S.E.2d 151 (Mack v. Galbreath) 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

Mack v. Galbreath, 256 S.E.2d 151, 149 Ga. App. 856, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2057 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs brought an action for damages resulting from his motorcycle collision with the defendants’ dog. This appeal is from the grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Held:

To defeat the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff was obliged to show some evidence from which it could be found that defendants’ dog had a propensity for the mischief complained of, and that the defendants knew of this specific propensity. Turner v. Irvin, 146 Ga. App. 218 (246 SE2d 127) (1978); McNair v. Jones, 137 Ga. App. 13 (223 SE2d 27) (1975). The defendants submitted affidavit and deposition evidence to the contrary, and there is nothing in the record to controvert this evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The principle stated here and in the earlier cases cited was recently reaffirmed in Banks v. Adair, 148 Ga. App. 254 (251 SE2d 88) (1978), involving a directed verdict in a dog-bite case.

Argued March 6, 1979 — Decided May 8, 1979. McAllister & Roberts, J. Dunham McAllister, for appellants. Dennis, Corry, Webb, Carlock & Williams, Robert E. Corry, Jr., Douglas W. Smith, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Underwood and Carley, JJ., concur.

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

Banke, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs brought an action for damages resulting from his motorcycle collision with the defendants’ dog. This appeal is from the grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Held:

To defeat the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff was obliged to show some evidence from which it could be found that defendants’ dog had a propensity for the mischief complained of, and that the defendants knew of this specific propensity. Turner v. Irvin, 146 Ga. App. 218 (246 SE2d 127) (1978); McNair v. Jones, 137 Ga. App. 13 (223 SE2d 27) (1975). The defendants submitted affidavit and deposition evidence to the contrary, and there is nothing in the record to controvert this evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The principle stated here and in the earlier cases cited was recently reaffirmed in Banks v. Adair, 148 Ga. App. 254 (251 SE2d 88) (1978), involving a directed verdict in a dog-bite case.

Argued March 6, 1979 — Decided May 8, 1979. McAllister & Roberts, J. Dunham McAllister, for appellants. Dennis, Corry, Webb, Carlock & Williams, Robert E. Corry, Jr., Douglas W. Smith, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Underwood and Carley, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.E.2d 151, 149 Ga. App. 856, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-galbreath-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack