Legal Opinion
Pope v. Associated Cab Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided July 16, 1954No. 35235PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
The first special ground contends that it was error for the court to charge in substance that if the plaintiff, who was a passenger in the defendant’s taxicab, was negligent in failing to avoid the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, if any, and was then injured, she could not recover, on the ground that the charge, although correct as an abstract proposition of law, was not supported by any evidence, that it intimated to the jury that they would be authorized to find the plaintiff negligent, and misled them into believing that there was evidence as to negligence on her part.
Where…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co. v. MarkensSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Ayers v. John B. Daniel Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
- William Hester Marble Co. v. WaltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Planters Cotton Oil Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Carroll v. HayesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
- East Side Auto Parts, Inc. v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Cannady v. LambCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Big Bend Agri-Services, Inc. v. Bank of MeigsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1985
- Carter v. Central of Georgia RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.