Karlan v. Enloe
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Judge.
After the jury had retired, counsel for the defendant called to the court’s attention the fact that he had failed to instruct them on comparative negligence, at which time the plaintiffs counsel commented only that he hoped the court would also make it clear that the jury was to give no undue significance to the fact that they were called back to receive this additional charge. No objection to the charge as given was made. Thus, the defendant did not object to the instruction in the trial court, and inferentially acceded to it in advance. No error is shown. Colley v. Stump, 119…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. TiceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Tallent v. McKelveyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- McLendon v. FloydCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Redd v. PetersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- Groover v. HightowerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Preferred Risk Insurance v. BoykinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
- Young v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Fargason v. PervisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Rutland v. Fuels, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Smith v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.