Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
'Stephens, P. J.
1. Where an act which is in violation of a statute is ¿lleged as the foundation of the plaintiff’s right to recover, and where'the act by reason of its'being in violation of the statute constitutes negligence per >se, it is not essential to the plaintiff’s right to rely upon the act as constituting negligence per *80se-to plead the statute and to allege that the act complained of was a violation thereof. Gainesville Midland Ry. v. Vandiver, 141 Ga. 350 (80 8. E. 997); Youmans v. Georgia & Florida Ry. Co., 142 Ga. 781 (83 S. E. 784); Alkinson v. Hardaway, 10 Ga. App. 389 (73 S. E.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Gainesville Midland Railway v. VandiverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
- Youmans v. Georgia & Florida Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1914
- Atkinson v. HardawayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. MeisterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
3Cited by4 opinions
- Criswell Baking Co. v. MilliganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Aultman v. SpellmeyerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Aultman v. SpellmeyerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Linda Batiste v. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District2015