Legal Opinion
Limbert v. Bishop
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided November 8, 1957No. 36884PublishedCited by 29 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNichols, J.
1. The first special ground of the amended motion for new trial contends that the trial court erred, even without a proper written request having been submitted, in failing to charge the jury on “comparative negligence,” on the duty of the plaintiff to “exercise ordinary care for his own safety,” and on the plaintiff’s duty to exercise “ordinary' care to prevent the negligence of the defendant after such negligence was discovered.”
The evidence showed without dispute, that the defendant’s truck was driven into the service station where the plaintiff was employed, and parked, that thereafter…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Nashville, Chattanooga & Saint Louis Railway Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. TompkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. MeiselCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
- Sammons v. WebbCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
- Investors Syndicate v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Bennett v. HaleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Hardwick v. Georgia Power Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- Johnson v. RooksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- CINCINNATI, NO &C. R. CO. v. HilleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- Globe Motors, Inc. v. NoonanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.