Court Opinion

ID: 5611447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 04:02:22.533214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:07.267040
License: Public Domain

Broyles, P. J.
“In the absence of any testimony at the trial under review that the engines of the defendant company were equipped with' proper spark-arresters, the various circumstances in proof were sufficient to require a submission to the jury of the issue whether the fire which destroyed the plaintiff’s property was caused by the negligence of the defendant company.” Jarrell v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 21 Ga. App. 415 (3) (94 S. E. 648). Under this ruling and the facts of the present case, after the allowance of the amendment to the petition, the court erred in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.

Cited in the brief for plaintiff:
Ga. Rep. 90/11; 101/751; 113/338; 114/315; 135/400, 406; 138/440; 139/367-70; 139/408; 141/590; Ga. App. R. 11/483, 531, 790; 20/354; 31/415, 814, 818; 95 S. E. (N. C.) 175; 95 S. E. (N. C.) 490; 75 S. E. (Va.) 183; 163 Ky. 469; 35 Okla. 754; 97 Ark. 54; 153 N. C. 79; 184 Mich. 375; 173 Mo. App. 579; 148 Ky. 345; 111 Maine, 591; 143 Mo. App. 557;164 App. Div. (N. Y.) 431; 135 S. W. 70. 114 Ga. 713, 145 Ga. 686, distinguished.. Cited for defendant: 3 Ga. App. 333; 145 Ga. 688.
Hewlett & Dennis, for plaintiff. Brandon & Hynds, Colquitt & Conyers, J. H. Longino, for defendant.