Nunez v. Emanuel County

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nunez v. Emanuel County

95 S.E. 718, 22 Ga. App. 219, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 258

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 12, 1918

Docket9273

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 718 (Nunez v. Emanuel 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

Nunez v. Emanuel County, 95 S.E. 718, 22 Ga. App. 219, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. In a suit against a county for damage alleged to have, been caused by a defective bridge, the plaintiff can not recover unless the proper county authorities had knowledge of the defective condition, or unless the defect had existed for such a length of time that:-knowl- » edge thereof on the parr of the county authorities would be presumed (Stamps v. Newton County, 8 Ga. App. 230 (3b)) (68 S. E. 947); and it is a jury question as to what length of time a defect in a bridge must exist before a county is charged with knowledge of negligence. City of Rome v. Brooks, 7 Ga. App. 244 (66 S. E. 627); Enright v. Atlanta, 78 Ga. 289.

2. The evidence as a whole being sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the county authorities did not have notice of the defect in the bridge, and that the defective condition had not existed for such a . length of time as to charge the authorities with such knowledge as would make them liable under the law, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which was based on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and I/uke, J.J., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. In a suit against a county for damage alleged to have, been caused by a defective bridge, the plaintiff can not recover unless the proper county authorities had knowledge of the defective condition, or unless the defect had existed for such a length of time that:-knowl- » edge thereof on the parr of the county authorities would be presumed (Stamps v. Newton County, 8 Ga. App. 230 (3b)) (68 S. E. 947); and it is a jury question as to what length of time a defect in a bridge must exist before a county is charged with knowledge of negligence. City of Rome v. Brooks, 7 Ga. App. 244 (66 S. E. 627); Enright v. Atlanta, 78 Ga. 289.

2. The evidence as a whole being sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the county authorities did not have notice of the defect in the bridge, and that the defective condition had not existed for such a . length of time as to charge the authorities with such knowledge as would make them liable under the law, the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, which was based on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and I/uke, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 718, 22 Ga. App. 219, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunez-v-emanuel-county-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack