Legal Opinion

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Street

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 6, 1967No. 43018PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Deen, Judge.

1. (a) “If the plaintiff by ordinary care could have avoided the consequences to himself caused by the defendant’s negligence, he is not entitled to recover. In other cases the defendant is not relieved, although the plaintiff may in some way have contributed to the injury sustained.” Code § 105-603. The first sentence of this Code section is taken to mean that the doctrine of comparative negligence is not applicable where, after the negligence of the defendant is actually apparent, the consequences of such negligence could have been avoided by ordinary care on the part of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Laseter v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  2. Southern Railway Co. v. HoganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  3. Thomas v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  4. Yandle v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  5. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. RobertsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Chandler v. GatelyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
  2. Myers v. BolemanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  3. Seagraves v. ABCO Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  4. Aretz v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1978
  5. Oscar Klein Plumbing & Heating v. BoydDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984

3 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