Cent. Eailrd. Co v. Raiford

• Decision Date: 18 March 1889
• Citation: 82 Ga. 400,9 S.E. 169
• Parties: Central Eailroad Co. v. Raiford.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

9 S.E. 169

(82 Ga. 400)

Central Eailroad Co.

v.Raiford.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 18, 1889.

Railroad Companies—Accidents at Crossings.

1. The statutory diligence required touching the use of the bell or whistle, and touching checking of trains, on approaching public crossings, is exacted primarily for the benefit of persons crossing the track, and not for those walking along it, yet relatively to the latter, as well as the former, a failure to comply with the statute is evidence of negligence to be considered by the jury.

2. Ordinary care, by one crossing a railway upon a public crossing, is not the measure of ordinary care for one using the track to walk upon, although at the moment he may be at or on such a crossing. One who undertakes to make a passway of a railroad must use that degree of diligence which every prudent person uses who puts himself unnecessarily in a perilous situation. The evidence in the record strongly indicates that, had the injured party come up to this measure of diligence, he could and would have avoided the consequences to himself of the negligence of the company; and a new trial is ordered on this question alone, with direction to render judgment for the amount already assessed, or dismiss the action, according as the finding of another jury may be in the affirmative or the negative touching this one question.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Sumter county; Port, Judge.

Lyon & Estes and E A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error. Guerry & Son and B. P. Hollis, for defendant in error.

Bleckley, C. J. Raiford obtained a verdict for $1,500 damages against the railroad company for a personal injury, and a motion for a new trial by the company was denied. The in-j ury resulted in the loss by Raiford of one hand, and part of one foot. We are satisfied that the damages were assessed upon the theory that both parties were negligent. That theory is well warranted by the evidence. The injury occurred at a street crossing, and Raiford was stricken while upon the crossing, or very near to it; but he was not using the highway for the purpose of crossing the railroad, but was using the track for the purpose of walking along it. It was late at night. He had already passed up the railroad for some distance, and had stepped off the track to allow a freight train to pass. He then returned to it and continued to walk along it, although he knew that another freight train was behind, and would probably soon overtake him. The only explanation he gives why he was not looking out was that he expected that train to "drill" at the station. He says it came upon him unawares, and he did not discover its approach until it was within some four feet. He then attempted to leave the track, but was too late. It...