violation of a statutory requirement (Georgia) · Go Syfert
← Georgia issues

violation of a statutory requirement in Georgia

6 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2015 0 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Underwoodgreen
ga · 1962 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Co. v. Underwood, 218 Ga. 193, 195 (1) ( 126 SE2d 785 ) (1962) (“The court in determining whether the violation of a statutory requirement is negligence per se as to the person complaining thereof upon which a cause of action will rest, will look to the particular statute in respect to its purposes, that is, the evils it was intended to guard against and the persons it was intended to protect.” (punctuation omitted)).

2015Co. v. Underwood, 218 Ga. 193, 195 (1) ( 126 SE2d 785 ) (1962) (“The court in determining whether the violation of a statutory requirement is negligence per se as to the person complaining thereof upon which a cause of action will rest, will look to the particular statute in respect to its purposes, that is, the evils it was intended to guard against and the persons it was intended to protect.” (punctuation omitted)).

22
Huckabee v. Gracegreen
gactapp · 1934 · cited in 2 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1962–1962
2 sentences

1962Therefore, we must conclude that the railroad does fall within that class for whose benefit the statute was enacted, *195 and that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the rule relied on by the plaintiff which is well stated in Huckabee v. Grace, 48 Ga. App. 621, 632 ( 173 SE 744 ), as follows: “The court in determining whether the violation of a statutory requirement is negligence per se as to the person complaining thereof upon which a cause of action will rest, will look to the particular statute in respect to its purposes, that is, the evils it was intended to guard against and the perso

1962Therefore, we must conclude that the railroad does fall within that class for whose benefit the statute was enacted, *195 and that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the rule relied on by the plaintiff which is well stated in Huckabee v. Grace, 48 Ga. App. 621, 632 ( 173 SE 744 ), as follows: “The court in determining whether the violation of a statutory requirement is negligence per se as to the person complaining thereof upon which a cause of action will rest, will look to the particular statute in respect to its purposes, that is, the evils it was intended to guard against and the perso

22
Central Anesthesia Associates P. C. v. Worthygreen
gactapp · 1984 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728, 732 (2) ( 333 SE2d 829 ) (1985) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and responsibility of licensed physicians trained and experienced in anesthesia when administering anesthesia was designed to protect against the improper administration of anesthesia causing medical complications); Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 173 Ga. App. 150, 153 ( 325 SE2d 819 ) (1984) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and res

2015See Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728, 732 (2) ( 333 SE2d 829 ) (1985) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and responsibility of licensed physicians trained and experienced in anesthesia when administering anesthesia was designed to protect against the improper administration of anesthesia causing medical complications); Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 173 Ga. App. 150, 153 ( 325 SE2d 819 ) (1984) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and res

11
Groover v. Johnstongreen
gactapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728, 732 (2) ( 333 SE2d 829 ) (1985) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and responsibility of licensed physicians trained and experienced in anesthesia when administering anesthesia was designed to protect against the improper administration of anesthesia causing medical complications); Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 173 Ga. App. 150, 153 ( 325 SE2d 819 ) (1984) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and res

2015See Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728, 732 (2) ( 333 SE2d 829 ) (1985) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and responsibility of licensed physicians trained and experienced in anesthesia when administering anesthesia was designed to protect against the improper administration of anesthesia causing medical complications); Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 173 Ga. App. 150, 153 ( 325 SE2d 819 ) (1984) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and res

11
Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthygreen
ga · 1985 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728, 732 (2) ( 333 SE2d 829 ) (1985) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and responsibility of licensed physicians trained and experienced in anesthesia when administering anesthesia was designed to protect against the improper administration of anesthesia causing medical complications); Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 173 Ga. App. 150, 153 ( 325 SE2d 819 ) (1984) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and res

2015See Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 254 Ga. 728, 732 (2) ( 333 SE2d 829 ) (1985) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and responsibility of licensed physicians trained and experienced in anesthesia when administering anesthesia was designed to protect against the improper administration of anesthesia causing medical complications); Central Anesthesia Associates, P.C. v. Worthy, 173 Ga. App. 150, 153 ( 325 SE2d 819 ) (1984) (holding that statute requiring that certified nurse anesthetists operate under the direction and res

11
Jones v. Dixie Drive It Yourself System, Atlanta Co.green
gactapp · 1958 · cited in 1 Georgia opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987However, even assuming appellant violated OCGA § 40-5-122, this violation does not entitle appellee to recover. “ ‘(a) Actionable *244 negligence consists in a violation of some duty owed to another person; (b) in order for the violation of some statutory duty to be negligence per se, the person claiming it as such must be within the class for whose benefit the statute was passed; (c) if there is no person upon whom the violation of the statute can operate, there is no breach of duty; and (d) the court in determining whether the violation of a statutory requirement is negligence per se as to t

1987However, even assuming appellant violated OCGA § 40-5-122, this violation does not entitle appellee to recover. “ ‘(a) Actionable *244 negligence consists in a violation of some duty owed to another person; (b) in order for the violation of some statutory duty to be negligence per se, the person claiming it as such must be within the class for whose benefit the statute was passed; (c) if there is no person upon whom the violation of the statute can operate, there is no breach of duty; and (d) the court in determining whether the violation of a statutory requirement is negligence per se as to t

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Platt v. Southern Photo Material Co. green
gactapp · 1908
1 sentence

1962Platt v. Southern Photo Material Co., 4 Ga. App. 159 ( 60 SE 1068 ), involved legislation designed for the protection of children working in a factory.

11962–1962
Lewis v. State green
· 1908
1 sentence

1962Platt v. Southern Photo Material Co., 4 Ga. App. 159 ( 60 SE 1068 ), involved legislation designed for the protection of children working in a factory.

11962–1962
Grannemann v. Salley green
gactapp · 1957
1 sentence

1961Grannemann v. Salley, 95 Ga. App. 778 , supra. Ground 14 complains of another charge to the effect that, if the violation of a statutory requirement regarding brakes, as set forth in the Code sections charged, is shown, the defendant has the burden to come forward and prove such violation was not due to neglect on his part arising from actual or constructive knowledge of said defect or from negligent failure to. inspect.

11961–1961

Where else courts name it

GA 6 (1961–2015) OH 5 (1969–2023) IA 5 (1901–1988) ND 4 (1955–1971) KY 4 (2008–2021) CT 3 (1947–1992) NY 2 (1915–1967) NM 2 (1945–1970) NC 2 (2022–2022) TX 2 (1998–2023) IL 2 (2006–2006)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check