Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Ga. App. 711

Parrott v. Tinley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 12, 1910

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1910-05-12

<p>Action for damages; from city court of M'aeon — Judge Hodges. November 6, 1909.</p>

Relies on Central Railroad v. Rouse · King Manufacturing Co. v. Walton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1910-05-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1970

3 state decisions

101910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hill, C. J.

¶11. The charge of the court, as a whole, submitted, the issues made by the pleadings and the evidence fairly, fully and accurately, and the objections made to excerpts therefrom are without merit. No error of law appears, and the question of negligence as settled by the verdict is supported by some evidence.

¶22. The jury believed that the plaintiff’s theory as to how he was injured was the truth, notwithstanding some of the testimony may have brought his theory into seemingly direct and inexplicable conflict with physical -laws. The duty of reconciling mysterious facts with physical laws, and solving perplexing problems is peculiarly for the jury, and this court will not interfere with the solution, unless manifestly a mistake or indisputably erroneous. King Mfg. Co. v. Walton, 1 Ga. App. 403 (6), 411 (58 S. E. 115); Central R. Co. v. Rouse, 77 Ga. 407 (3 S. E. 307). Judgment affirmed.

/7/gaapp/711 · .json · Public domain