Tallulah Falls Railway Co v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tallulah Falls Railway Co v. Davis

105 S.E. 712, 26 Ga. App. 215, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 75

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1921

Docket11336

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 105 S.E. 712 (Tallulah Falls Railway Co v. Davis) 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

Tallulah Falls Railway Co v. Davis, 105 S.E. 712, 26 Ga. App. 215, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 75 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The measure of damages recoverable in a suit brought under the Federal employer’s liability act being only the amount the deceased, if he had ndt died, would have contributed to his legal beneficiaries (the plaintiff and her child in the instant case), it was reversible error for the court to instruct the jury as follows: “ If entitled to recover anything, it should be such an amount as would he a fair cash equivalent of his full yearly earning capacity when he lost his life, payable in annual installments until his death. ”

2. Although elsewhere in his charge, but not in direct connection with the above excerpt, the judge correctly instructed the jury upon this subject, it cannot, under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, be held that the erroneous charge was harmless error, since it was never specifically retracted.

3. After a careful examination of the several assignments of error, the above ruling deals with the only complaint that contains reversible error. ' • >

-Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., eoncws. Broyles, G. J., disqualified.

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

Luke, J.

1. The measure of damages recoverable in a suit brought under the Federal employer’s liability act being only the amount the deceased, if he had ndt died, would have contributed to his legal beneficiaries (the plaintiff and her child in the instant case), it was reversible error for the court to instruct the jury as follows: “ If entitled to recover anything, it should be such an amount as would he a fair cash equivalent of his full yearly earning capacity when he lost his life, payable in annual installments until his death. ”

2. Although elsewhere in his charge, but not in direct connection with the above excerpt, the judge correctly instructed the jury upon this subject, it cannot, under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, be held that the erroneous charge was harmless error, since it was never specifically retracted.

3. After a careful examination of the several assignments of error, the above ruling deals with the only complaint that contains reversible error. ' • >

-Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth, J., eoncws. Broyles, G. J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.E. 712, 26 Ga. App. 215, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tallulah-falls-railway-co-v-davis-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack