Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Georgia opinions name it 1 courts 1970–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lorie v. Standard Oil Co.green2 sentences2022Co., 266 Ga. App. 289, 292 (2) ( 596 SE2d 758 ) (2004), quoting Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). 20 “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the foreseeability of their negligence attracting rescuers to assume the risks.”37 The doctrine, however “appl[ies] only if [the plaintiff was] acting simply as a volunteer or bystander.”38 Here, the trial court co 2022Co., 266 Ga. App. 289, 292 (2) ( 596 SE2d 758 ) (2004), quoting Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). 20 “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the foreseeability of their negligence attracting rescuers to assume the risks.”37 The doctrine, however “appl[ies] only if [the plaintiff was] acting simply as a volunteer or bystander.”38 Here, the trial court co | 3 | 3 |
Flowers v. Slash Pine Electric Membership Corp.green2 sentences1980This is a question for jury determination. "[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the duty of anticipating that their negligence might attract rescuers who would necessarily have to assume the dangers inherent in the situation.” Flowers v. Slash Pine EMC, 122 Ga. App. 254, 258-259 ( 176 SE2d 542 ). 1980This is a question for jury determination. "[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the duty of anticipating that their negligence might attract rescuers who would necessarily have to assume the dangers inherent in the situation.” Flowers v. Slash Pine EMC, 122 Ga. App. 254, 258-259 ( 176 SE2d 542 ). | 2 | 2 |
Walker Hauling Co., Inc. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2004Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Trammel v. Bradberry, 256 Ga. App. 412, 421-422 (5) ( 568 SE2d 715 ) (2002); Walker Hauling Co. v. Johnson, 110 Ga. App. 620, 625 ( 139 SE2d 496 ) (1964). 2004Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Trammel v. Bradberry, 256 Ga. App. 412, 421-422 (5) ( 568 SE2d 715 ) (2002); Walker Hauling Co. v. Johnson, 110 Ga. App. 620, 625 ( 139 SE2d 496 ) (1964). | 1 | 4 |
Griner v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2022Co., 266 Ga. App. 289, 292 (2) ( 596 SE2d 758 ) (2004), quoting Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). 20 “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the foreseeability of their negligence attracting rescuers to assume the risks.”37 The doctrine, however “appl[ies] only if [the plaintiff was] acting simply as a volunteer or bystander.”38 Here, the trial court co 2022Co., 266 Ga. App. 289, 292 (2) ( 596 SE2d 758 ) (2004), quoting Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). 20 “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the foreseeability of their negligence attracting rescuers to assume the risks.”37 The doctrine, however “appl[ies] only if [the plaintiff was] acting simply as a volunteer or bystander.”38 Here, the trial court co | 1 | 1 |
Trammel v. Bradberrygreen2 sentences2004Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Trammel v. Bradberry, 256 Ga. App. 412, 421-422 (5) ( 568 SE2d 715 ) (2002); Walker Hauling Co. v. Johnson, 110 Ga. App. 620, 625 ( 139 SE2d 496 ) (1964). 2004Lorie v. Standard Oil Co., 186 Ga. App. 753, 754 (1) ( 368 SE2d 765 ) (1988). “[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendants’ negligence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Trammel v. Bradberry, 256 Ga. App. 412, 421-422 (5) ( 568 SE2d 715 ) (2002); Walker Hauling Co. v. Johnson, 110 Ga. App. 620, 625 ( 139 SE2d 496 ) (1964). | 1 | 1 |
Rushton v. Howlegreen2 sentences1980"The . . . question ... is, does the stimulus of the negligence under the circumstances call for the effort to rescue as a normal reaction to the situation, which cannot be said to be rash and reckless as a matter of law? . . . 'Whether or not reasonable and prudent [persons] would act in the same way, under such circumstances, is a question for the jury to determine.’ ” Rushton v. Howle, 79 Ga. App. 360, 361-362 ( 53 SE2d 768 ). 1980"The . . . question ... is, does the stimulus of the negligence under the circumstances call for the effort to rescue as a normal reaction to the situation, which cannot be said to be rash and reckless as a matter of law? . . . 'Whether or not reasonable and prudent [persons] would act in the same way, under such circumstances, is a question for the jury to determine.’ ” Rushton v. Howle, 79 Ga. App. 360, 361-362 ( 53 SE2d 768 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stevens v. Baggett
green
2 sentences1988Stevens v. Baggett, 154 Ga. App. 317, 318 (1) ( 268 SE2d 370 ) (1980). "[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendant's negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the duty of anticipating that their negligence might attract rescuers who would necessarily have to assume the dangers inherent in the situation." Flowers v. Slash Pine &c. 1988Stevens v. Baggett, 154 Ga. App. 317, 318 (1) ( 268 SE2d 370 ) (1980). "[T]he doctrine of rescue necessarily contemplates an assumption of the risk inherent in the peril created by the defendant's negligence and allows recovery for injuries thereby incurred, for the reason that the defendants were charged with the duty of anticipating that their negligence might attract rescuers who would necessarily have to assume the dangers inherent in the situation." Flowers v. Slash Pine &c. | 1 | 1988–1988 |