Parrott v. Tinley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parrott v. Tinley

67 S.E. 1049, 7 Ga. App. 711, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 482

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1910

Docket2278

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.E. 1049 (Parrott v. Tinley) 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

Parrott v. Tinley, 67 S.E. 1049, 7 Ga. App. 711, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The charge of the court, as a whole, submitted, the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence fairly, fully and accurately, and the objections made to excerpts therefrom are without merit. No error of law appears, and the question of negligence as settled by the verdict is supported by some evidence.

2. The jury believed that the plaintiff’s theory as to how he was injured was the truth, notwithstanding some of the testimony may have brought his theory into seemingly direct and inexplicable conflict with physical -laws. The duty of reconciling mysterious facts with physical laws, and solving perplexing problems is peculiarly for the jury, and this court will not interfere with the solution, unless manifestly a mistake or indisputably erroneous. King Mfg. Co. v. Walton, 1 Ga. App. 403 (6), 411 (58 S. E. 115); Central R. Co. v. Rouse, 77 Ga. 407 (3 S. E. 307). Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The charge of the court, as a whole, submitted, the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence fairly, fully and accurately, and the objections made to excerpts therefrom are without merit. No error of law appears, and the question of negligence as settled by the verdict is supported by some evidence.

2. The jury believed that the plaintiff’s theory as to how he was injured was the truth, notwithstanding some of the testimony may have brought his theory into seemingly direct and inexplicable conflict with physical -laws. The duty of reconciling mysterious facts with physical laws, and solving perplexing problems is peculiarly for the jury, and this court will not interfere with the solution, unless manifestly a mistake or indisputably erroneous. King Mfg. Co. v. Walton, 1 Ga. App. 403 (6), 411 (58 S. E. 115); Central R. Co. v. Rouse, 77 Ga. 407 (3 S. E. 307). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 1049, 7 Ga. App. 711, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrott-v-tinley-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack