City of Rome v. Ford
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Reece. March 17, 1913. .
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
1. In a suit against a municipality to recover damages for personal injuries, where it was alleged and proved that the plaintiff, as a result of the injuries received, was unable to do his accustomed work, and suffered great mental anguish and physical pain, it was not error to admit the following testimony of the plaintiff: “The fact that I have not been able to work and carry on my duties as I was accustomed to do before has worried me.” Nor was the following instruction to the jury erroneous: “And I further charge you in this case, that the loss of ability to labor is pain and suffering.”…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Powell v. Augusta & Summerville RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Southern Railway Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- City Council of Augusta v. OwensSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. KellySupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
- Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. JordanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Railway Express Agency Inc. v. StandridgeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
- Georgia Power Co. v. BraswellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Jones v. HutchinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Jones v. HutchinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960