Parsons v. Sears, Roebuck Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parsons v. Sears, Roebuck Company

31 S.E.2d 605, 71 Ga. App. 583, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 167

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 27, 1944·No. 30609.·Published

Opinion

Parker, J.

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.

*584 Decided September 27, 1944. Fine & Hendrix, for plaintiff. Alston, Foster, Sibley & Miller, for defendant.

2. The excerpts from the charge complained of, when considered in connection with the entire charge, show no harmful error.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Parker, J.

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.

*584 Decided September 27, 1944. Fine & Hendrix, for plaintiff. Alston, Foster, Sibley & Miller, for defendant.

2. The excerpts from the charge complained of, when considered in connection with the entire charge, show no harmful error.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Parsons v. Sears, Roebuck Company, 31 S.E.2d 605, 71 Ga. App. 583, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 167 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

31 S.E.2d 605 (Parsons v. Sears, Roebuck Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.