70 Ga. 674 (Ga. 1883), Atlanta and Charlotte Air Line Ry. v. Ray

Citation:70 Ga. 674
Opinion Judge:CRAWFORD, Justice.
Attorney:HENRY HILLLER; L. J. WINN, for plaintiff in error. HOPKINS & GLENN, for defendant.
Case Date:February 27, 1883
Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Page 674

70 Ga. 674 (Ga. 1883)




Supreme Court of Georgia.

February 27, 1883

February Term, 1883.

[This case was brought forward from the last term, under § 1271(a) et seq. of the Code.]

1. The object of section 3938 of the Code in limiting the service of a juror to four weeks in any one year is two-fold: first, to equalize the burden of jury duty; and second, to avoid the evil of " professional jurors; " and it should be strictly and energetically enforced for those purposes.

( a. ) Although a juror may have served four weeks during a term of court which began in December, yet he would not thereby be disqualified from another week of service in the succeeding year, although at the same term, which continued into the new year. The prohibition is against service for more than four weeks in a year, which means a calendar year.

2. On the trial of an action for damages by an employé of a railroad against the company, based upon the insecure fastening of a stove in one of its cars, resulting in damage to the plaintiff, it was not error against the defendant to charge that it was not liable unless it " knew or should have had reason to know," that the stove was in an unsafe condition.

( a. ) The duty rested on the company to properly select and superintend its operatives, its machinery, appliances and appointments of every sort used in its business. It was a guarantor that all reasonable and proper care had been and should be exercised in the performance of those duties, and its liabilities should be limited to a failure to meet its obligations in this respect.

3. If it was the duty of a flagman to make fires in the stove on one of the cars of a railroad company, which he did; and if there was a defect in the manner in which the stove was fastened, such as to make it unsafe to build a fire therein on account of the dangers incident to railroad travelling; and this was such an open and patent defect as he could have easily seen, but on account of his own negligence he carelessly overlooked it and failed to report it that it might be remedied, then he was guilty of contributing, by his own negligence and carelessness, to the injury which he received, and was therefore not entitled to recover.

4. A flagman on a railroad whose place was in the rear car when in motion, but who had duties which, on occasion, might call him to other parts of the train, having brought suit against the railroad company for an injury received while he was in another portion of the train, resulting from the overturning of a stove in the car where he was, it was necessary for him to show affirmatively that, at the time he was hurt, his duty required him to be at the place where the injury occurred.

( a. ) That, by reason of the shock or the lapse of time, the plaintiff has lost the memory which would enable him to establish this fact, is his misfortune...

To continue reading