Legal Opinion

Russell v. Bayne

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 23, 1932No. 21636PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Per curiam

It is a rule of law that every normal adult person shall exercise ordinary care for his safety under any and all circumstances, and the only issue that will ever arise under this rule is whether in a given situation the acts or omissions of the person will amount to a failure to exercise such care. If there is no evidence as to such failure, the court should not submit the question, but if there is any evidence that the person has not exercised due care, under the circumstances, and the pleadings also authorize it, the question should be given to the jury. Collum v. Georgia Ry. & Electric…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Atlanta, Knoxville & Northern Railway Co. v. GardnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Powell v. BerrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
  3. Savannah Electric Co. v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  4. Kokesh v. PriceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  5. Dedman v. DedmanTennessee Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Eddleman v. AskewCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
  2. Freeman v. MartinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  3. Bogen v. . BogenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Bogen v. BogenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Crandall v. SammonsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940

35 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