General Wholesale Co. v. Hertz Corp.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Judge.
1. The first two enumerations of error contend that the effect of the court’s charge was to place the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show the negligence of the defendant, whereas after proof of bailment and loss the burden rested on the defendant to show lack of negligence. No objection was made in the trial court and these grounds will not be considered here. Matthews v. Tucker Real Estate Co., 116 Ga. App. 214 (156 SE2d 669); Caudell v. Sargent, 118 Ga. App. 405 (164 SE2d 148).
2. In summarizing the contentions of the parties the trial court stated: “If you believe the beer…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Shiels v. StarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1854
- Caudell v. SargentCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Matthews v. TUCKER REAL ESTATE COMPANY, INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- American Trust & Banking Co. v. HarrisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
- Kibbey Chevrolet, Inc. v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
3Cited by3 opinions
- Crawford v. Presbyterian Home, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
- Hathaway v. BishopCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
- Hathaway v. BishopCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994