TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Smith v. County of Jasper

Smith v. Cnty. of Jasper, 72 S.E. 65 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
September 11, 1911
Docket
No. 3072
Judges
Hill
Citations
72 S.E. 659 Ga. App. 6671911 Ga. App. LEXIS 287
Summary
Action for damages; from city court of Montieello — Judge Thurman. November 14, 1910.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hill

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hill, C. J.

1. A petition to recover damages for personal injuries, which alleges in substance that a county bridge was defective and out of repair, in that there was a large hole in the bottom of the bridge, which hole had been permitted to remain in the bridge for a long time, and of which the county authorities had actual or constructive notice, and that the plaintiff’s mule, attached to a buggy, while being driven across the bridge, became frightened at the hole and backed the buggy off the bridge, which was without guard-rails or protection of any kind, and thereby injured the mule and buggy, the plaintiff himself being without fault, set forth a cause of action, and the court erred in dismissing it on general demurrer. Georgia Railroad Co. v. Mayo, 92 Ga. 223 ( 17 S. E. 1000 ); City Council of Augusta v. Hudson, 94 Ga. 136 ( 21 S. E. 289 ).

2. A proposed amendment to the petition described in the foregoing headnote, setting up an additional ground of negligence, in that the county authorities were further negligent in having a defective plank in the bridge, which fact they knew, and that the plank broke while the-plaintiff’s team was crossing the bridge, which caused the mule and buggy to fall off the bridge, resulting in damage to the mule and buggy, introduced no new cause of action, but was simply an additional ground of negligence to that alleged in the original petition; and the refusal to allow this amendment was erroneous. City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785 ( 48 S. E. 318 ). Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1915: 11921: 119152026peak 1915 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. City of Rome84 S.E. 734 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)
  2. Cobb County v. Abernathy106 S.E. 613 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)

Most recent

  1. Cobb County v. Abernathy106 S.E. 613 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)
  2. Smith v. City of Rome84 S.E. 734 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
City of Columbus v. Anglin, 48 S.E. 318 (Ga. 1904) 135
Ga. R.R. v. Mayo, 17 S.E. 1000 (Ga. 1893) 13
City Council of Augusta v. Hudson, 21 S.E. 289 (Ga. 1894) 24

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list