Southern Express Co. v. Hughes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Express Co. v. Hughes

97 S.E. 860, 23 Ga. App. 224, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 49

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1919

Docket9495

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 97 S.E. 860 (Southern Express Co. v. Hughes) 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

Southern Express Co. v. Hughes, 97 S.E. 860, 23 Ga. App. 224, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 49 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1.- Under the facts developed in this ease, the principles of law (1) that if both_ the plaintiff and the defendant were free from fault, the injury will be attributed to accident, and no recovery can be had, and (2) that it was incumbont upon the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care and diligence in using the streets, and (3) that if both parties were at .fault, the damages should be apportioned, were entirely germane, and the judge erred' in refusing to give in charge the requested instructions embodying these legal doctrines, which were couched in appropriate form and language, and were not covered by his charge to the jury. As to the principle of accident, see Holliday v. Athens, 10 Ga. App. 709 (74 S. E. 67) ; as to-the failure to exercise ordinary care, see Park’s Code, § 4426, and notes; and as to diminution of damages, see Americus &c. R. Co. v. Luckie, 87 Ga. 6, 7 (13 S. E. 105) Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co. v. Ingram, 135 Ga. 696 (70 S. E. 234) ; Central Ry. Co. v. Madden, 135 Ga. 205 (69 S. E. 165, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813, 21 Ann. Cas. 1017); Rollestone v. Cassirer, 3 Ga. App. 161 (59 S. E. 442). _

2. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial are without substantial merit, or the alleged errors are such as are not likely to recur on another trial.

Judgment •reversed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1.- Under the facts developed in this ease, the principles of law (1) that if both_ the plaintiff and the defendant were free from fault, the injury will be attributed to accident, and no recovery can be had, and (2) that it was incumbont upon the plaintiff to exercise ordinary care and diligence in using the streets, and (3) that if both parties were at .fault, the damages should be apportioned, were entirely germane, and the judge erred' in refusing to give in charge the requested instructions embodying these legal doctrines, which were couched in appropriate form and language, and were not covered by his charge to the jury. As to the principle of accident, see Holliday v. Athens, 10 Ga. App. 709 (74 S. E. 67) ; as to-the failure to exercise ordinary care, see Park’s Code, § 4426, and notes; and as to diminution of damages, see Americus &c. R. Co. v. Luckie, 87 Ga. 6, 7 (13 S. E. 105) Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co. v. Ingram, 135 Ga. 696 (70 S. E. 234) ; Central Ry. Co. v. Madden, 135 Ga. 205 (69 S. E. 165, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 813, 21 Ann. Cas. 1017); Rollestone v. Cassirer, 3 Ga. App. 161 (59 S. E. 442). _

2. The remaining special grounds of the motion for a new trial are without substantial merit, or the alleged errors are such as are not likely to recur on another trial.

Judgment •reversed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 860, 23 Ga. App. 224, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-express-co-v-hughes-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack