Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Heard, (No. 17432.)
| Decision Date | 24 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 17432.) |
| Citation | 136 S.E. 533,36 Ga.App. 332 |
| Parties | CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. HEARD. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; P. W. Meldrim, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Virginia L. Heard against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
This case is here upon exceptions to the overruling of a general demurrer to the petition. The suit was to recover damages for personal injuries to Mrs. Heard, the plaintiff, occasioned by the collision of an automobile in which she was riding and a freight train of the defendant railway company, standing at a public grade crossing. The petition contained substantially the following allegations: Mrs. Heard, with other persons, went in an automobile from the city of Savannah to a point on the Augusta road north of Sylvania, for the purpose of conveying to Mr. and Mrs. Alexander, who had been detained because of an automobile accident, certain necessary parts for the repair of their car. As the plaintiff and the others with her were returning to the city of Savannah, the plaintiff was sitting in the front scat of the automobile, at the steering wheel, and was driving. About 3:30 in the morning of October 19, 1925, the automobile was proceeding along Bay street extension in the city of Savannah, from the direction of Augusta, and into the city of Savannah. Bay street is one of the main streets in the city of Savannah and is the highway leading from Savannah to Augusta and all intermediate points, and is also the highway which leads to and from the new bridge that crosses the Savannah river at Port Wentworth, and which connects the state of Georgia with the state of South Carolina.
The accident in which the plaintiff was injured happened at the railroad crossing on Bay street extension, known as crossing No. 4. This crossing No. 4 is frequented by the public in passing to and from the business and banking district of Savannah, and is about one mile distant on Bay street extension from the city hall of Savannah. Crossing No. 4 is one of the most generally frequented railroad crossings in the city of Savannah. The night was intensely dark, and was misty and foggy, and, because of the darkness and inclement weather, the plaintiff was driving the automobile with care and caution along said Bay street extension, and at a rate of speed not exceeding 15 miles, per hour. While proceeding in the careful manner aforesaid, the machine was nearing the Central crossing No. 4, but the plaintiff was not aware of the fact that she was in the immediate vicinity of said crossing; and, in the exercise of ordinary care, she could not have so known, as the defendant company had not provided any means whatever of warning her of her approach toward said crossing. When in front of the automobile, and not more than 10 feet distant, there suddenly loomed the bulk of a freight car. The freight car was one of a train of about 30 freight cars, which were standing on the third track of said crossing No. 4, and said train was blocking said No. 4 crossing. In order to avoid collision with the box car, the automobile was swerved toward the right, and the plaintiff endeavored to stop the automobile before it left the paved highway, but was unable to do so, and said automobile left the paved highway and proceeded in a direction parallel with the said box car, and the automobile side-swiped the box ear. Because of the impact, the plaintiff received described injuries. The plaintiff had no notice or warning of the presence of said box car that was blocking the crossing until she was within about 10 feet of the same. An electric street lamp hung over said street at a height of about 15 feet above the pavement and about 20 feet west of the box car, but said light did not apprize the plaintiff of the presence of the box car, for the reason that said light, because of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monforton v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
...is one of fact for the jury. It was so held where the question was raised on the pleadings in the cases of Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Heard, 36 Ga.App. 332, 136 S.E. 533, and Elliott v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 227 Mo.App. 225, 52 S.W.2d 448; and a like result was declared where the questi......
-
Dimond v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis
... ... Louis, a Corporation, Appellant No. 36560 Supreme Court of Missouri June 28, 1940 ... ... & St. L. Ry. Co. v ... Gillespie, 173 N.E. 708; Gilman v. Cent. Vt. Ry ... Co., 93 Vt. 340, 107 A. 122; Scarborough v. L. & N ... & N. Ry. Co., 276 Ky. 292, 124 S.W.2d 91; Central of ... Ga. v. Heard, 36 Ga.App. 332, 136 S.E. 533; Shelley ... v. Pollard, 55 Ga.App. 88, ... ...
-
Walsh v. Butte, A. & P. Ry. Co.
...97 P.2d 325 109 Mont. 456 WALSH v. BUTTE, A. & P. RY. CO. No. 7886.Supreme Court of MontanaDecember 13, 1939 ... crossing he heard neither bell nor whistle and saw no lights ... on the train; when about ... greatly cut down. Palmer v. New York Cent. & H. R. R ... Co., 112 N.Y. 234, 19 N.E. 678; Elliott on Railroads (2d ... ...
-
Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Brower, 38376
...bright. As we view this case, it is on the facts alleged not substantially distinguishable from the cases of Central of Gerogia Railway Co. v. Heard, 36 Ga.App. 332, 136 S.E. 533; Mann v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., supra; Southern R. Co. v. Lowry, 59 Ga.App. 109, 200 S.E. 553; and Savannah......