Black & White Cab Co. v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtMacIntyre, J.
1. It is well settled that where the pleadings and the evidence raise the issue of whether the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, it is the duty of the trial judge to give this principle in charge to the jury without request. Atlanta &c. Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 122 Ga. 82 (49 S. E. 818); Deen v. Wheeler, 7 Ga. App. 507 (67 S. E. 212) ; Jackson v. Georgia R. &c. Co., 7 Ga. App. 644 (67 S. E. 898); Georgia Ry. & Power Co. v. Freeney, 22 Ga. App. 457 (96 S. E. 575); Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Reid, 23 Ga. App. 694 (99 S. E.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway Co. v. GardnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Davis v. WhitcombCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Olliff v. HowardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Davies v. West Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Whatley v. HenryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
- Hathcox v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Eidson v. FelderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943