Legal Opinion

Glover v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 28, 1940No. 28461PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

In Cohn v. Buhler, 30 Ga. App. 14 (116 S. E. 864), it was held that the law placed upon the driver of an automobile the duty to use ordinary care, or such care as every prudent man should exercise in the same or similar circumstances, after the infant child was or, in the exercise of ordinary care on the driver’s part, should have been seen by him, to avoid injuring such child. In Smith v. Kleinberg, 49 Ga. App. 194 (174 S. E. 731), this court held that it is the duty of those driving automomobiles at a place on a public street in a populous locality of a city, where they know that a crowd of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cohn v. BuhlerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  2. Smith v. KleinbergCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  3. Llorens v. McCannSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1937
  4. La Rose v. Shaughnessy Ice Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  5. Madden v. Mitchell Automobile Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1917

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Harris v. HardmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
  2. Hill v. MorrisonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
  3. Kennedy v. BanksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  4. Meriweather v. Atlanta Transit Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API