Phillips v. Cleveland
This text of 120 S.E. 639 (Phillips v. Cleveland) 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
In this suit for damages on account of injuries alleged to have been occasioned to plaintiff’s mule by a runaway team of defendant, in which a verdict was rendered for plaintiff, no error of law is assigned. Whether or not the testimony indicating knowledge on the part of the owner that the team had run away on another occasion would bring the action within the purview of section 4417 of the Civil Code (1910), relating to liability for keeping and careless management of vicious or dangerous animals, the allegations and proof make out a case, under authority of Phillips v. Dewald, 79 Ga. 732, 735 (7 S. E. 151, 11 Am. St. Rep. 458), and Browder-Manget Co. v. Calhoun Brick Co., 138 Ga. 277, 279 (75 S. E. 243), on account of what the jury was authorized to find was the negligence of the defendant in leaving the team unhitched and unattended in the town street, regardless of any dangerous or vicious [207]*207disposition on tlieir part. While the evidence for the plaintiff on this point was somewhat weak, his own testimony that the team was “left on the street without a driver” is sufficient to render this court powerless to set aside the approved verdict of the jury. See also 3 Corpus Juris, 93; 1 R. C. L. 1108-1110.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
120 S.E. 639, 31 Ga. App. 206, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-cleveland-gactapp-1923.