Legal Opinion

Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 3, 1938No. 26521PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  2. Gainesville Midland Railway v. VandiverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
  3. Youmans v. Georgia & Florida Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1914
  4. Atkinson v. HardawayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
  5. Western & Atlantic Railroad v. MeisterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Criswell Baking Co. v. MilliganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
  2. Aultman v. SpellmeyerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  3. Aultman v. SpellmeyerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  4. Linda Batiste v. Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District2015

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

Powered by the Exa API