Legal Opinion

Brown v. Meikleham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 20, 1925No. 16108PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) With reference to the rulings made in the last three divisions of the syllabus, relating to exceptions to the charge on the subject of negligence,—it is provided by the Civil Code (1910), § 4426, that, “if the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover. But in other cases the defendant is not relieved, although the plaintiff may in some way have contributed to the injury sustained.” In Americus &c. R. Co. v. Luckie, 87 Ga. 6, 7 (13 S. E. 105), it was held…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Americus, Preston & Lumpkin Railroad v. LuckieSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
  2. Central Railroad v. BrinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
  3. Lamon v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
  4. Haas & Howell v. GodbyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
  5. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. NewmanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Underwood v. Atlanta & West Point RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  2. Dawson Motor Co. v. PettyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  3. Mitchem v. Shearman Concrete Pipe Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
  4. City of Rome v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
  5. Hix-Green Company v. DowisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API