Legal Opinion
Bowyer v. Cummins
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided March 3, 1950No. 32883PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.
The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to count one. The relationship between the defendants was that of bailor and bailee. Harris v. Whitehall Chevrolet Co., 55 Ga. App. 130 (189 S. E. 392). The defendant Bowyer contends that the operating of the automobile by the defendant Cason after Cason acquired knowledge that the brakes were defective, broke the connection between Bowyer’s alleged negligence and the injury, and that Cason’s negligence was a superseding and the sole proximate cause of the injuries. We do not agree with this contention. It is alleged that Bowyer had…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Williams v. GrierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Callahan v. CofieldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Holt v. Eastern Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
- Holt v. Eastern Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
- Harris v. Whitehall Chevrolet Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hertz Driv-Ur-Self Stations Inc. v. BensonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
- Yale & Towne, Inc. v. SharpeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Johnson v. BrantCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- Southeastern Air Service, Inc. v. CrowellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Coopers', Inc. v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.