it bought and damaged the railcars, no “accident” occurred. Like the property owner in Meriwether, Plaintiff may have been mistaken about its property rights, but that mistake, according to the Defendant, does not amount to an “accident” as that term is commonly understood. This Court agrees with the Defendant. Although there is language in Glens Falls that would seem to indicate that a mistake or error in judgment is tantamount to an “accident,” such a reading of the case would bring it into an inherent conflict with that court’s earlier decision in Meri-wether. This Court has a duty to avoid interpreting the cases from the Georgia Court of Appeals in a manner that would bring about such a conflict. See e.g. Garrett v. Heisler, 149 Ga.App. 240, 253 S.E.2d 863, 867 (Ga.Ct.App.1979) (<HOLDING>). A fair reading of Meriwether leads to the
recognizing usefulness of lower court opinions holding unconstitutional the provision in a georgia abortion statute limiting abortions to georgia residents recognizing the supreme courts holding in ferber recognizing courts duty to reconcile opinions from the georgia supreme court holding that when mississippi adopted a statute modeled after a georgia enactment decisions of the georgia courts did not bind mississippi courts in interpretation of the statute