Georgia Reports Volume 144

Georgia Reports Volume 144

By (author) 

List price: US$13.51

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...the husband's negligence in any manner or thing which was the proximate cause of his death did not amount to a failure to exercise ordinary care and diligence for his own protection, and that he could not by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence have avoided the consequence of the defendant's negligence after the same was existing and known to him, or should have been known to him, under the rules of law which I have given you in charge, then the plaintiff may recover in this action, but the amount of recovery should be reduced by the amount of fault attributable to plaintiff's deceased husband naming him." This charge was not subject to the criticism that it included two distinct rules of law, which are embodied in the Civil Code (1910), 2781 and 4426 respectively, in such manner as to limit and modify each other. Wrightsville 46 Tennille R. Co. v. Gomto, 129 Ga. 204 (8), 209 (58 S. E. 769); Southern Ry. C0. v. Nichols, 135 Ga. 11 (2), 13 (68 S. E. 789); Western ce Atlantic R. Co. v. Dovis, 139 Ga. 493 (77 S. E. 576). (a) Nor was there error for a like reason in the charge complained of in the eleventh ground of the motion for a new trial. (b) It was not error for the presiding judge to omit to charge, in the absence of a timely request therefor, that if the negligence of the deceased was equal to or greater than that of the defendant the plaintiff could not rcover. Central Ry. C0. v. Gill. 136 Ga.. 240 (71 S. E. 166). 6. None of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial furnish cause for reversal, or require discussion in detail. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. Dncmnnra 18, 1915. Action for damages. Before...
show more

Product details

  • Paperback
  • 189 x 246 x 22mm | 735g
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236919904
  • 9781236919908