Walton v. Rankin-Whitten Realty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walton v. Rankin-Whitten Realty Co.

161 S.E. 276, 44 Ga. App. 288, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 673

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1931

Docket21723

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 161 S.E. 276 (Walton v. Rankin-Whitten Realty 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

Walton v. Rankin-Whitten Realty Co., 161 S.E. 276, 44 Ga. App. 288, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 673 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, O. J.

1. “To recover damages on account of physical injuries resulting from fright, where there is no actual immediate personal injury, it must appear that the injuries were the natural and proximate result of the fright or shock, and that the defendant could or should have known that the act producing the injuries would with reasonable certainty cause such a result; and it must appear that the injuries resulted from such gross carelessness, coupled with a knowledge of the probable physical results, as amounted to wilful and reckless disregard of consequences; or that the fright (with its consequences) was brought about by a deliberate and malicious intention on the part of the defendant to injure the plaintiff.” Goddard v. Watters, 14 Ga. App. 722 (2) (82 S. E. 304) ; Logan v. Gossett, 37 Ga. App. 516 (140 S. E. 794) ; Williamson v. Central of Georgia, Ry. Co., 127 Ga. 125 (4-a) (56 S. E. 119).

2. Under the above-stated ruling, and the facts of the instant case, as disclosed by the pleadings, the petition failed to set out a cause of action against any of the defendants, and their general demurrers were properly sustained and the case dismissed. The request of counsel for the plaintiff in error that the decision of this court in Logan v. Gossett, supra, be reviewed and overruled, is denied.

Judgment affvrmed.

Luke and, Bloodtrorlh, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, O. J.

1. “To recover damages on account of physical injuries resulting from fright, where there is no actual immediate personal injury, it must appear that the injuries were the natural and proximate result of the fright or shock, and that the defendant could or should have known that the act producing the injuries would with reasonable certainty cause such a result; and it must appear that the injuries resulted from such gross carelessness, coupled with a knowledge of the probable physical results, as amounted to wilful and reckless disregard of consequences; or that the fright (with its consequences) was brought about by a deliberate and malicious intention on the part of the defendant to injure the plaintiff.” Goddard v. Watters, 14 Ga. App. 722 (2) (82 S. E. 304) ; Logan v. Gossett, 37 Ga. App. 516 (140 S. E. 794) ; Williamson v. Central of Georgia, Ry. Co., 127 Ga. 125 (4-a) (56 S. E. 119).

2. Under the above-stated ruling, and the facts of the instant case, as disclosed by the pleadings, the petition failed to set out a cause of action against any of the defendants, and their general demurrers were properly sustained and the case dismissed. The request of counsel for the plaintiff in error that the decision of this court in Logan v. Gossett, supra, be reviewed and overruled, is denied.

Judgment affvrmed.

Luke and, Bloodtrorlh, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 276, 44 Ga. App. 288, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-rankin-whitten-realty-co-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack