11 S.E. 499 (Ga. 1890), Central R.R. of Georgia v. Ryals

Citation:11 S.E. 499, 84 Ga. 420
Opinion Judge:BLECKLEY, C.J.
Attorney:R. F. Lyon, for plaintiff in error. Desseau & Bartlett, for defendant in error.
Case Date:February 24, 1890
Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Page 499

11 S.E. 499 (Ga. 1890)

84 Ga. 420




Supreme Court of Georgia

February 24, 1890

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Though ordinary care as a legal standard for the measure of diligence is invariable, yet, as the conduct of a prudent man varies with the degree of danger attending the vocation in which he is engaged, and is more or less cautious according to circumstances, those who are bound to conform their conduct to his must graduate it in like manner. This applies both to one exposed to danger, and to others not so exposed, whose acts or omissions affect his safety.

2. The rules of a railway company for the government of its employes are not obligatory as such upon those who are not aware of them, and to whom they have not been promulgated.

3. The injury involved in the case having been received by the subordinate while acting under orders from his superior, his habit to act hastily and needlessly upon other occasions was not sufficiently relevant to be admissible in evidence.

4. The opinion of a witness that the backing of the train was very carefully done, and that nothing was done carelessly or negligently, was not admissible.

5. Though the verdict is not altogether satisfactory to this court, inasmuch as it was rendered by the jury, and approved by the presiding judge, and is not palpably unwarranted, it is left to stand.

Error from superior court, Bibb county; GUSTIN, Judge.

Action for damages received by plaintiff while in the employ of defendant railroad company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

R. F. Lyon, for plaintiff in error.

Desseau & Bartlett, for defendant in error.


1. The Code, § 3033, is in these words: "A railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to persons, stock, or other property, by the running of the locomotives or cars, or other machinery of such company, or for damage done by any person in the employment and service of such company, unless the company shall make it appear that their agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the company." The court instructed the jury expressly that "if the defendant has made it appear that its agents oremployes, at the happening of the injury, and in about the service resulting in the...

To continue reading