69 Ga. 200 (Ga. 1883), Central R.R. v. Gleason

Citation:69 Ga. 200
Opinion Judge:CRAWFORD, Justice.
Party Name:THE CENTRAL RAILROAD v. GLEASON & HARMON.
Attorney:H. C. CUNNINGHAM; A. R. LAWTON, Jr., for plaintiff in error. CHARLTON & MACKALL; N. C. COLLIER, for defendants.
Case Date:January 30, 1883
Court:Supreme Court of Georgia
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 200

69 Ga. 200 (Ga. 1883)

THE CENTRAL RAILROAD

v.

GLEASON & HARMON.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

January 30, 1883

September Term, 1882.

1. Where a railroad company had a cotton yard which had been planked over for public use in the removal of cotton, it was the duty of the company to keep such yard and flooring in good order for that purpose, to the extent and limit of such use; and if it be made to appear that damage to property has been occasioned by the negligence of the company in not keeping such yard in repair, so as to be safely used by those engaged in the removal of cotton therefrom, the company would be liable, unless its agents exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence to prevent such damage. If both the company and the property owner, or his agent, were at fault, the doctrine of apportionment of damages would apply.

( a. ) If the company did keep the yard in proper repair for the purpose of hauling, and the damage occurred by reason of the property owner, or his agent undertaking to use a part of the yard not designed for that purpose, or arose from want of ordinary care to avoid the injury, either in the manner of driving or in his conduct at the time of the injury, there could be no recovery

( b. ) The charge of the court in regard to contributory negligence was right as far as it went; but after stating the liability of the company, he should have added that it existed unless the agents had exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence to prevent the injury

2. One issue being whether the cotton yard was negligently out of repair, there was no error in allowing evidence of repairs which were made at the place where the injury occurred, although made after it happened. Whether they should have been made before or were rendered necessary by the accident, was a question for the jury.

3. The judge of the city court of Savannah has power to hear and determine all civil cases of which said court has jurisdiction without a jury, where no jury is demanded, but it is not obligatory upon him to do so.

Railroads. Damages. Negligence. Actions. Charge of Court. Evidence. Savannah. Before Judge HARDEN. City Court of Savannah. February Term, 1882.

Reported in the decision.

H. C. CUNNINGHAM; A. R. LAWTON, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

CHARLTON & MACKALL; N. C. COLLIER, for defendants.

CRAWFORD, Justice.

This suit...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP