Legal Opinion

Covington v. SH Kress & Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 15, 1960No. 38324PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Felton, Chief Judge.

“One is bound to anticipate and provide against what usually happens and what is likely to happen; but it would impose too heavy u responsibility to hold him bound in like manner to guard against what is unusual and unlikely to happen, or what, as it is sometimes said, is only remotely and slightly probable.” Yarbrough v. Cantex Mfg. Co., 97 Ga. App. 438, 440 (103 S. E. 2d 138) and cit. “The general test in such cases is not whether the injurious result or consequence was possible, but whether it was probable; that is, likely to occur according to the usual experience of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. Jones, McDougald, Smith, Pew Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
  2. Yarbrough v. Cantex Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  3. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Towles v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
  2. Rustin Stamp & Coin Shop, Inc. v. Ray Bros. Roofing & Sheet Metal Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
  3. Belk-Hudson Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
  4. Lankford v. Trust Co. BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  5. Cobb v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API