Misenhamer v. Pharr
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Quillian, Judge.
In determining the sufficiency of the petition as against general demurrer, the first matter for consideration is whether the facts alleged showed such a want of care oni the plaintiff’s part to apprehend and avoid the alleged negligence of the defendant as to debar her right of recovery.
“A plaintiff is not required to allege facts showing he' exercised due care for his own safety, or that the injury was not the result of his own negligence.” McDowall Transport, Inc. v. Gault, 80 Ga. App. 445, 447 (56 S. E. 2d 161).
However, if the facts alleged affirmatively reveal that he…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Coffer v. BradshawCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Hendricks v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
- City of Brunswick v. GlogauerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Lane Drug Stores Inc. v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
- Avary v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Wakefield v. AR Winter Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
- Ellington v. Tolar Consruction Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1976
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. HardyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Amear v. HallCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- Shockley v. Zayre of Atlanta, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.