Ashworth v. East Tenn.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1894 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ASHWORTH . v. EAST TENNESSEE, v. & G. RY. CO. |
New Trial—Action against Railroad Company —Personal Injuries.
There was no error in granting a second new trial in this case.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Floyd county; W. M. Henry, Judge.
Action by J. B. Ashworth against the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company for injuries. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. A new trial was granted, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Following is the official report:
Ashworth sued the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company for damages for personal injuries. As to the circumstances attending the injury, and the cause thereof, he alleged: He was going to his home at night, along ——street, a public road used by the public in traveling to and from Rome; said street being one opened by the New Rome Land Company, and a dummy line being then used along and through the street, and across the track of defendant. He came to the crossing of the railroad track across the dummy line and street. The defendant has a side track running just along its main track, and across the dummy line and street; and when he approached the crossing he found on each side of the dummy line and street, and between him and the defendant's main line, a long line of standing freight cars. Expecting no danger, and no signal being given at the crossing, he stepped from between the standing cars at once, upon the main line; but as soon as his feet rested on the main line he perceived an engine and train of cars approaching, and already on him, running at the rate of 20 miles an hour, silently, without signal or warning. That he attempted to turn and escape, but, using all rapidity, was struck by the front of the engine. The declaration then detailed the nature of the injury inflicted, and alleged negligence on the part of defendant because the train was not stopped at the crossing, because no signal was given at the crossing, and because freight trains and cars were left standing on the side track, obstructing the view of the main track. By amendment he alleged that when he approached the railroad of defendant he used all care to pass the crossing safely; that before going on the side track or main line he looked as carefully as might be for an approaching train, but, because of the obstructions (alleged in the declaration) negligently left by defendant between the road on which he was and its main line, he could not see the main line; that he stopped and listened as carefully as might be for an approachingtrain, but, because of the negligently silent and rapid manner in which it ran, could hear no sound of It; that it was the duty of the conductor and engineer on the train to come to a full stop within 50 feet of the crossing of any independent railroad track, and then move slowly over such crossing; that the dummy line was an independent railroad, and he had a right to expect defendant to stop within 50 feet of the crossing, and then move slowly over; that he was within 10 feet of said crossing, and, had such duty been observed by defendant, it would have been impossible for him to have been injured, but defendant ran negligently, willfully, and maliciously, over the crossing at the rate of 20 miles an hour; that beyond the crossing of the public street, within 400 yards of it, and just ahead of the train, as it was then running, was one of the public roads of the county; that had a blow post been placed 400 yards from such crossing, and the whistle blown thereat, he could not have been injured; that he had the right to expect defendant to have blow posts 400 yards from the public street, and 400 yards...
To continue reading
Request your trial