Legal Opinion

Yancey v. Hyden

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 21, 1947No. 31505PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSutton, P. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1. The machine which injured the plaintiff was not in itself a dangerous machine or one capable of injuring the plaintiff if there had not been the intervening and independent action of the plaintiff’s playmates. The machine had been used for grinding feed and, when demonstrated by the defendants, it used an electric motor for its motive power. At the time of the injury, the feeder pan and electric motor had been detached or disconnected from the machine and the machine was not in use, and those in charge of demonstrating it had gone from the fairgrounds…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. McCall v. McCallieCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
  2. Atlanta Cotton-Seed Oil Mills v. CoffeySupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
  3. O'Connor v. BruckerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  4. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. O'NealSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  5. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. PierceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brown v. BoneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
  2. Brown v. BoneCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API