Legal Opinion · Concurrence

S & a CORPORATION v. Berger & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 5, 1965No. 40963Published

1ConcurrenceHall, Judge

I reluctantly concur with the opinion for the reason that we are bound by the Supreme Court’s affirmance (Fields v. Goldstein, 214 Ga. 277, 104 SE2d 337) of Fields v. Goldstein, 97 Ga. App. 286, 288 (3) (102 SE2d 921). In my opinion, the better rule is that the question whether the failure to procure an adequate policy was due to the plaintiff’s own negligence in not reading his policy should be submitted to the jury. The following authorities support this view: Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & Ins. Co., 182 N.C. 599 (109 SE 632); Ursini v. Goldman, 118 Conn. 554 (173 A 789); Shapiro v. Amalgamated…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ursini v. GoldmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  2. Elam v. Smithdeal Realty & InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. Elam v. . Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  4. Fields v. GoldsteinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  5. Israelson v. WilliamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915

5 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