Rigg v. New World Pictures, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1ConcurrenceBeasley, Judge
I concur fully in Division 2.
The jury charge ruled on in Division 1 was not entirely correct. It is true that the principle applies to a defendant as well as a plaintiff. From early on, it has been stated and reiterated that the principle applies to “a party” rather than being limited to “a plaintiff.” See, e.g., Western & A. R. Co. v. Evans, 96 Ga. 481, 486 (23 SE 494) (1895), which states succinctly the reason for the rule which, when so considered, fits a defendant as well as a plaintiff. Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc., 256 Ga. 27, 28 (1) (343 SE2d 680) (1986), expressly refers…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Prophecy Corp. v. Charles Rossignol, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1986
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. EvansSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Clark v. BandySupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
- Castile v. BurtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- Goldstein v. GTE Products Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982