Miller v. Mayor of Savannah

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Miller v. Mayor of Savannah

126 S.E. 867, 33 Ga. App. 560, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 592

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1925

Docket16073

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 867 (Miller v. Mayor of Savannah) 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

Miller v. Mayor of Savannah, 126 S.E. 867, 33 Ga. App. 560, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

Mrs. Miller brought suit for personal injuries against, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. She alleged in part that while crossing Forsyth Park in said city “her toe caught in a piece of upturned cement of the sidewalk where the said cement sidewalk had been in some way broken and cracked, leaving a piece several inches long and several inches wide [561]*561upturned about two inches;” that she was thrown heavily on her side and severely injured. On the trial of the case the plaintiff supported by evidence the allegations of her petition. The defendant introduced in evidence a section of the code of the City of Savannah,—a codification of an ordinance passed in 1851,—which showed that the place where the plaintiff was injured was in certain boundaries which were “forever set apart as a public park.” Other evidence showed that this park was still in use as such by the public; that the walk on which plaintiff was walking when she fell “had been used for a walk since the fifties;” that the Park and Tree Commission of the City of Savannah had control, management and maintenance of the sidewalks and pavements of the park in which she was injured, and that the cement walk on which she fell was laid in 1903. After the evidence was all in the judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff excepted.

Under the principle announced in the headnote to this case the court did not err in .directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

Mrs. Miller brought suit for personal injuries against, the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. She alleged in part that while crossing Forsyth Park in said city “her toe caught in a piece of upturned cement of the sidewalk where the said cement sidewalk had been in some way broken and cracked, leaving a piece several inches long and several inches wide [561]*561upturned about two inches;” that she was thrown heavily on her side and severely injured. On the trial of the case the plaintiff supported by evidence the allegations of her petition. The defendant introduced in evidence a section of the code of the City of Savannah,—a codification of an ordinance passed in 1851,—which showed that the place where the plaintiff was injured was in certain boundaries which were “forever set apart as a public park.” Other evidence showed that this park was still in use as such by the public; that the walk on which plaintiff was walking when she fell “had been used for a walk since the fifties;” that the Park and Tree Commission of the City of Savannah had control, management and maintenance of the sidewalks and pavements of the park in which she was injured, and that the cement walk on which she fell was laid in 1903. After the evidence was all in the judge directed a verdict for the defendant, and plaintiff excepted.

Under the principle announced in the headnote to this case the court did not err in .directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Lulce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 867, 33 Ga. App. 560, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-mayor-of-savannah-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack