Atlanta & W. P. R. Co v. Haralson
| Decision Date | 14 August 1909 |
| Citation | 133 Ga. 231,65 S.E. 437 |
| Parties | ATLANTA & W. P. R. CO. v. HARALSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Where, in an action for damages on account of a personal injury received in alighting from a railroad train, the petition alleged that the plaintiff's injuries were permanent, and that his ability to labor had been reduced about one-half, after the plaintiff had testified as to the injury and its nature and character and given all the material facts touching his physical condition, his previous capacity, and his subsequent incapacity resulting therefrom, it was not error to allow him to state that he could not do more than half as much labor in his vocation as a blacksmith since the injury as he could before it occurred. Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Johnson. 66 Ga. 259 (2), (4a); Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus R. Co. v. Huggins, 89 Ga. 494. 15 S. E. 848. (a) This evidence was not rendered inadmis-sible because the witness also testified that his injuries had affected him as a blacksmith, that he had to give up his trade on that account, that he was working in a blacksmith shop, and was fitting himself for blacksmithing.
(b) The objection to the evidence as not being warranted by the pleadings was without merit.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2292-2305; Dec. Dig. § 501:* Damages, Cent. Dig. §§ 443, 490; Dec. Dig. §§ 159, 173.*]
Where the plaintiff claimed that he was injured by a fall in attempting to alight from a railway train while in motion, under the direction of the conductor, there was no error in allowing a witness who had testified that as the plaintiff attempted to leave the train he pitched forward, fell, and rolled over on the ground, to state, "I don't remember plaintiff saying anything as he arose, except that he was hurt on his shoulder and leg and hip"; there being nothing to indicate that this was aD afterthought or was a mere narration of a past transaction. Southern Ry. Co. v. Brown, 126 Ga. 1, 5, 54 S. E. 911, 912 (2).
(a) Especially will this furnish no ground for reversal, where the presiding judge, in a note to this ground of the motion for a new trial certified that the witness had already testified, without objection, that immediately after he got up he had stated that he was hurt, and that his shoulder was hurt.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 378-382; Dec Dig. § 127;* Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4101-4170; Dec. Dig. § 1051.*]
If a person's capacity to labor was permanently diminished by a physical injury wrongfully inflicted upon him by another, such permanent diminution of capacity to labor was for the consideration of the jury in determining the amount of the recovery, notwithstanding there may have been no proof showing a diminution of earnings or loss of time after the injury, and the pecuniary value thereof.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Dec. Dig. 1 163.*]
If it be sought to recover because of a decreased ability to earn money, or because of a loss of time, entailing pecuniary loss, there must be some proof as to such diminished earnings or earning capacity, or the value of such lost time, in order to authorize a submission to the jury of the question of such pecuniary loss; but permanent diminution of capacity to labor is for' the consideration of the jury, along with such elements of damage as pain, suffering, disfigurement, or the like, if proved, in determining the amount of damages to be awarded.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Damages, Dec. Dig. § 163.*]
If, on an excursion train carrying many passengers, a railroad company placed two conductors, or two persons intrusted with the duty of performing the usual functions of a conductor in taking up tickets, notifying passengers of stations, directing their movements, or the like, on different parts of such a train, as between the passenger dealing with one of such agents in connection with such duties and the company whom he represented, he would stand in the place of a conductor, whether he was such permanently or not.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 283.*]
If, on a train consisting of a large number of coaches and carrying many passengers, the conductor was unable to fully discharge the usual duties of his position between stations, and with his authority and knowledge another employe of the railroad on the train took charge of a section thereof and acted as the conductor in connection with it and with taking up tickets, notifying passengers of stations and directing them in regard to alighting, and if there was nothing to indicate that he was not the conductor, and a passenger so dealt with him, believed him to be the conductor, and acted on his announcements of a station and under his command as to leaving the car, the company would be liable to such passenger for an injury occurring in leaving the train, to the same extent as if the person thus acting was the conductor.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Carriers, Dec. Dig. § 283.*]
From a note of the presiding judge appended to the motion for a new trial, it appears that the improper remark of counsel for plaintiff, made during the progress of the argument of counsel for defendant, was held to be Improper and its effect was corrected by due instructions to the jury.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Troup County; R. W. Freeman, Judge.
Action by E. W. Haralson against the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
E. W. Haralson brought suit against the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company to recover damages for a personal injury. He claimed: That he was a passenger on board an excursion train returning from Atlanta to Gabbettsville. That he surrendered his ticket to the conductor. That about 8:45 p. m. the agent having charge of the train, "the conductor, as aforesaid, called out Gabbettsville, slacking his train down to a low rate of speed." That the plaintiff, relying on the announcement of the conductor as to the station, proceeded to the platform of the passenger coach and down on the steps, for the purpose of getting off. That the train did not come to a full stop, but the conductor came to the platform and said: That the plaintiff, being unused to travel, and not knowing at what speed the train was going, and relying on the instructions of the conductor, proceeded to get off the train, believing that he was in Gabbettsville at a point on the line of the road with which he was familiar. That in fact the station was Cannonvllle. That as he left the train he was jerked violently forward, causing him to fall and be injured. The defendant denied all the substantial allegations of the plaintiff.
On the trial the evidence was conflicting, but the plaintiff introduced testimony in support of his contentions. Throughout the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the person to whom he surrendered his ticket, and who, he contended, made the announcement of the station and commanded him to get off the train, was referred to as the "conductor." The plaintiff testified that: Another witness testified: Another witness for the plaintiff testified:
A witness for the defendant testified: That he was the conductor on the excursion train in connection with which the injury was claimed to have occurred; that there was but one conductor on that train; that at Cannonville, where the plaintiff claimed to have been injured, the witness called out the proper name of the station; that he went through not over five cars, there being eight or ten in the train. In regard to another acting as conductor, he testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cone v. Davis
...60 Ga.App. 567, 569(3), 4 S.E.2d 489, and the exception is controlled adversely to the defendant by that case. Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Haralson, 133 Ga. 231(4), 65 S.E. 437; City Council of Augusta v. Owens, 111 Ga. 464(8), 36 S.E. 830. 11. The interpolation in the charge objected to......
-
Munday v. Brissette, 41609
...has been said that the loss of capacity to work is in the nature of pain, though no pecuniary loss be shown.' Atlanta & W.P.R. Co. v. Haralson, 133 Ga. 231, 235, 65 S.E. 437, 440, and cases cited. By its appearing that there were two separate items of damages involved to which the standard ......
-
Cone v. Davis
... ... [17 S.E.2d 851] ... Davis ... & Davis, of Clayton, and Neely, Marshall & Greene, of ... Atlanta", for plaintiff in error ... Bynum ... & Frankum, of Clayton, for defendant in error ... MacINTYRE, ... \xC2" ... exception is controlled adversely to the defendant by that ... case. Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Haralson, 133 Ga ... 231(4), 65 S.E. 437; City Council of Augusta v ... Owens, 111 Ga. 464(8), 36 S.E. 830 ... 11. The ... ...
-
Michaels v. Kroger Co.
...as an element of "pain and suffering," and the measure of damages was the enlightened conscience of the jury. Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Haralson, 133 Ga. 231(3), 65 S.E. 437. If there was a prior history of earnings and "permanent impairment of earning capacity" damages were recoverabl......