Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Middleton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Middleton

92 S.E. 943, 20 Ga. App. 247, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 840

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1917

Docket8042

StatusPublished

This text of 92 S.E. 943 (Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Middleton) 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

Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Middleton, 92 S.E. 943, 20 Ga. App. 247, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 840 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

There was evidence to authorize the inference, drawn by the jury, that the decedent was a licensee on the right of way of the railroad, and to warrant the conclusion that he was killed by the running of a train of the defendant company, and thus to create a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant. Whether the deceased was in the exercise of ordinary care, and whether the presumption of negligence created by the killing was rebutted, were questions for the jury. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial merely amplify the general grounds. There was evidence to sustain the verdict, and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luke, JJ., eoneur.

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

Wade, C. J.

There was evidence to authorize the inference, drawn by the jury, that the decedent was a licensee on the right of way of the railroad, and to warrant the conclusion that he was killed by the running of a train of the defendant company, and thus to create a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant. Whether the deceased was in the exercise of ordinary care, and whether the presumption of negligence created by the killing was rebutted, were questions for the jury. The special grounds of the motion for a new trial merely amplify the general grounds. There was evidence to sustain the verdict, and the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Luke, JJ., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 943, 20 Ga. App. 247, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaboard-air-line-railway-v-middleton-gactapp-1917.