Case Title: Southern Railway Company v. Georgia Kraft Company

Citation: 258 Ga. 232, 367 S.E.2d 539

Docket Number: 

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1988-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
258 Ga. 232 (1988) 367 S.E.2d 539 SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GEORGIA KRAFT COMPANY. 44991. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided April 21, 1988. Reconsideration Denied May 25, 1988. Greene, Buckley, Derieux & Jones, Burt Derieux, Eileen Crowley, Keith J. Reisman, Kinney, Kemp, Pickell, Sponcler & Joiner, L. Hugh Kemp, for appellant. Drew, Eckl & Farnham, W. Wray Eckl, for appellee. MARSHALL, Chief Justice. We granted certiorari in Southern R. Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 183 Ga. App. 884 (5) (360 SE2d 605) (1987), in order to review the correctness of the jury instructions on circumstantial evidence in this civil action. The Court of Appeals, in Division 5 of the majority opinion, concluded that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury that circumstantial evidence must be contrary to any other reasonable hypothesis in order for the burden of proof on such issue to be carried. For the reasons given in Judge Carley's dissenting opinion (183 Ga. App., supra at p. 887), we agree that under Radcliffe v. Maddox, 45 Ga. App. 676 (2) (165 SE 841) (1932), and the cases cited therein, this charge was erroneous. The point is elusive, but can be stated as follows: Circumstantial evidence can be described as evidence which does not constitute direct proof with regard to the issue of fact or the hypothesis sought to be proven by the evidence; rather, circumstantial evidence constitutes proof of other facts consistent with the hypothesis claimed. As held in Radcliffe, supra, the question as to the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence, and its consistency or inconsistency with alternative hypotheses, is a question for the jury. The correct statement of law to be given in instructions to the jury is that before "a plaintiff in a civil case" can have "a verdict in his favor" supported solely by circumstantial evidence, such evidence "must be such as to *233 reasonably establish the theory relied upon, and to preponderate to that theory rather than to any other reasonable hypothesis." Radcliffe, supra, 45 Ga. App. at p. 681. The standard for reviewing the legal sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, which is sole support for the finding under review, can be stated as follows: As further held in Radcliffe, Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.