Court Opinion

ID: 5620062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 04:32:31.396667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:22.500902
License: Public Domain

Bell, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Under the allegations of the petition, it could not be inferred that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and it was therefore proper to sustain the demurrer and dismiss the petition. Perry v. Central Railroad, 66 Ga. 746 (4, 5); Andrews v. Kinsel, 114 Ga. 390 (2) (40 S. E. 300, 88 Am. St. R. 25); Southern Ry. Co. v. Webb, 116 Ga. 152 (42 S. E. 395, 59 L. R. A. 109); Postal Telegraph Co. v. Kelly, 134 Ga. 218 (67 S. E. 803); Beckham v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 127 Ga. 550 (2) (56 S. E. 638, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 476); Shaw v. Macon, 6 Ga. App. 306 (64 S. E. 1102); Harper v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, 21 Ga. App. 322 (94 S. E. 286); Higginbotham v. Rome Ry. & Light Co., 23 Ga. App. 753 (99 S. E. 638); General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Daniel, 25 Ga. App. 282 (103 S. E. 257); Means v. Barnesville, 28 Ga. App. 671 (3) (112 S. E. 739).
The case as laid does not fall within the principle of the decisions relied on by the plaintiff in error, including Spires v. Goldberg, 26 Ga. App. 530 (106 S. E. 585); McAfee v. Martin, 34 Ga. App. 247 (129 S. E. 168); Letton v. Kitchen, 37 Ga. App. 111 (139 S. E. 155), affirmed in 166 Ga. 121 (142 S. E. 658).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.