Yarbrough v. Levinson Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Yarbrough v. Levinson Bros.

65 S.E.2d 286, 84 Ga. App. 131

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 25, 1951

Docket33591

StatusPublished

This text of 65 S.E.2d 286 (Yarbrough v. Levinson Bros.) 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

Yarbrough v. Levinson Bros., 65 S.E.2d 286, 84 Ga. App. 131 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

This action is one for the value of the life of a child whose death was allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant. We think, under the ruling of Reid v. Moyd, 186 Ga. 578 (198 S. S. 703), that a child two years, two months and twenty-four days of age alleged to have been “unusually large for his age, having the mental capacity of a child at least 5 or 6 years of age, strong, robust, precocious and capable of and actually running errands around the house and in the store operated by your petitioner and her husband, was not too young as a matter of law to render valuable services to his mother. Such question is one for a jury for the reasons given in that case.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the action.

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

Felton, J.

This action is one for the value of the life of a child whose death was allegedly caused by the negligence of the defendant. We think, under the ruling of Reid v. Moyd, 186 Ga. 578 (198 S. S. 703), that a child two years, two months and twenty-four days of age alleged to have been “unusually large for his age, having the mental capacity of a child at least 5 or 6 years of age, strong, robust, precocious and capable of and actually running errands around the house and in the store operated by your petitioner and her husband, was not too young as a matter of law to render valuable services to his mother. Such question is one for a jury for the reasons given in that case.

The court erred in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 S.E.2d 286, 84 Ga. App. 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yarbrough-v-levinson-bros-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack