Pierce v. Southern Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pierce v. Southern Railway Co.

69 S.E. 494, 8 Ga. App. 426, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 203

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 29, 1910

Docket2610

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 494 (Pierce v. Southern Railway Co.) 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

Pierce v. Southern Railway Co., 69 S.E. 494, 8 Ga. App. 426, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 203 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. While the standard of care required of children is “due care” according to age and capacity, it is not reversible error, in a clear ease, for the court to instruct the jury, where the injured child was fifteen years old at the time of the injury, that if the child, by the exercise of “ordinary care,”'could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, there could be no recovery. It is hardly probable that the jury was misled by the rather shadowy distinction between “due care” and “ordinary care,” or thought that “ordinary care” in the. case was a higher measure of prudence than “due care.”

2. The foregoing instruction is the only error of law complained of, and the evidence supports the verdict. ■

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. While the standard of care required of children is “due care” according to age and capacity, it is not reversible error, in a clear ease, for the court to instruct the jury, where the injured child was fifteen years old at the time of the injury, that if the child, by the exercise of “ordinary care,”'could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, there could be no recovery. It is hardly probable that the jury was misled by the rather shadowy distinction between “due care” and “ordinary care,” or thought that “ordinary care” in the. case was a higher measure of prudence than “due care.”

2. The foregoing instruction is the only error of law complained of, and the evidence supports the verdict. ■

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 494, 8 Ga. App. 426, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-southern-railway-co-gactapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack