Parsons v. Sears, Roebuck Company
This text of 31 S.E.2d 605 (Parsons v. Sears, Roebuck Company) 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.
Opinion
1. The evidence was in sharp conflict as to whether the plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by negligence on the part of the defendant, whether the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of any negligence of the defendant, or whether the injuries were caused solely by the plaintiff’s negligence, and a verdict in favor of the defendant was authorized.
2. The excerpts from the charge complained of, when considered in connection with the entire charge, show no harmful error.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
31 S.E.2d 605, 71 Ga. App. 583, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-sears-roebuck-company-gactapp-1944.