Cieplinski v. Caldwell Electrical Contractors, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBarnes, Judge
Although a jury might consider the evidence in this case as the majority has and reach the same conclusion, it is not the function of this court to weigh the evidence and decide whether it was sufficient to prove the plaintiffs case. That role is reserved for the jury. Roberts v. Dove, 234 Ga. App. 853, 854 (1) (508 SE2d 213) (1998). Thus, because I believe that the majority and the trial court have intruded on the role of factfinder by concluding that Henning Construction’s negligence was not the proximate cause of Cieplinski’s injury, I must respectfully dissent from the affirmance of the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Lau's Corp., Inc. v. HaskinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1991
- Robinson v. Kroger Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1997
- Ellington v. Tolar Consruction Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1976
- ONTARIO SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, LTD. v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 2002
- Hodge v. SADA Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1995
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.