Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Hunter
| Decision Date | 10 July 1907 |
| Citation | 128 Ga. 600,58 S.E. 154 |
| Parties | CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. HUNTER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A petition in a suit against a railroad company alleged that the defendant was the owner of the building which it used for depot purposes, and thereby invited persons having business to transact with the defendant to visit the same, and that the plaintiff went to the building for the purpose of transacting business with the defendant, and while there was injured by a defect in the floor of the building, which the defendant had negligently allowed to exist. An amendment was allowed, which alleged that the defendant permitted the express company to carry on its business in the building, and that the post office of the town was also situated therein, and that one person occupied all of the positions of railroad agent, express agent, and postmaster, and that plaintiff visited the building to transact business with such person as agent of the express company. Held, that the amendment did not set forth a new cause of action.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 39, Pleading, §§ 686, 687.]
The evidence authorized the verdict, and no sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 41, Railroads, §§ 868-872.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Taylor County; E. J. Reagan, Judge.
Action by Martha Hunter against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Mrs. Martha Hunter brought suit against the Central of Georgia Railway Company, alleging: That the defendant was a corporation operating a line of railroads in the county of Taylor and had damaged her in the sum of $10,000. The plaintiff visited the depot of the defendant at the station of Howard, in the county named, "for the purpose of transacting business with the defendant." While she was leaving the depot she stepped upon a plank in the floor of the depot, and the plank gave way, causing her to fall into the hole. The depot was a place designed for public use, and was used by the public. It was designed for the use of those who transacted business with the defendant, and was so used. The plank on which she stepped was loose, and was so placed that any one stepping upon it would cause it to tilt and be precipitated into a hole thereunder. The insecure condition of the place was known to the defendant, or by the exercise of ordinary care could have been known. The negligence alleged is in allowing the depot to become insecure and unsafe in the manner above referred to, and in failing to repair the same after notice of the fact that the same was out of repair. The petition in detail alleged the character of the injuries sustained, which were serious and permanent. The plaintiff offered an amendment to the petition, alleging, in substance, that the express company was permitted by the defendant to carry on its business in the depot, that she went to the depot for the purpose of transacting business with the agent of the express company, who was also the agent of the defendant, and that the post office of the town was also situated in the depot building, and the agent of the defendant was also the postmaster. The purpose for which the plaintiff entered the depot is alleged to have been to pay the agent of the express company for a package which had been forwarded by him for her. The defendant objected to the amendment, upon the ground that it added a new and distinct cause of action, changing the legal status of the parties and the character and nature of the liability of the defendant, and that the averments of the amendment were in no way germane to the cause as laid in the original petition. The court allowed the amendment, and the defendant excepted pendente lite. The defendant filed an answer, in which it admitted that its depot, or a part thereof, was intended and designed for the use of those who had business to transact with it, but denied that it was designed for public use, or was used by the public, except in the manner above referred to. When the case came on for a trial, at the conclusion of the plaintiffs testimony, the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, which was overruled, and the defendant excepted pendente lite. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of theplaintiff. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which being overruled, it excepted.
Charlton E. Battle, for plaintiff in error.
Smith, Berner, Smith & Hastings and R. S. Foy, for defendant in error.
COBB, P. J. (after stating the facts). 1. The original petition unquestionably set forth a cause of action. It was alleged that the defendant railroad company was the owner of a building used as a depot, and invited people having business with the company to come to the building and transact such business. The plaintiff, in response to this invitation, repaired to the building to transact business with the company, and was injured while there by a defect in the floor of the building, which the defendant negligently permitted to exist. The cause of action as originally alleged grew out of the ownership by the railroad company of the building, and its continuing it in a use which necessarily implied an invitation to all who had business with it to resort there for such purpose. The exact character of the business is not alleged. The character of the business that the owner or occupier of lands carries on therein is, in a case of the character now under consideration, material only in determining whether it is of a nature which implies an invitation to others to resort to such place. The use by a railroad company of a building by them for a freight and passenger depot carries with it an implied invitation to any one who may have business with it in its capacity as a carrier of freight or a carrier of passengers. "When the owner or occupier of land, by invitation, express or implied, induces or leads others to come upon its premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or its approaches, and, under such an express or implied invitation, he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit." Atlanta Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145, 4 S. E. 759 (2), 12 Am. St. Rep. 244; Civ. Code 1895, § 3824. The liability of a railroad company as the owner or occupier of land, engaged in business, is the same as that of any person in like circumstances. Central Railroad v. Gleason, 72 Ga. 742.
It is now to be determined whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Capps
...although the particular thing which is the subject of the visit may not be for the benefit of the occupant." Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ga. 600, 604, 58 S.E. 154; King v. Central of Georgia R. Co, 107 Ga. 754, 760, 33 S.E. 839; Jones v. Asa G. Candler, Inc., 22 Ga.App. 717, 71......
-
Fulton Ice & Coal Co v. Pece
...v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 6 Ga. App. 97(1). 64 S. E. 302; Moone v. Smith, 6 Ga. App. 649(1), 65 S. E. 712; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ga. 600(1). 58 S. E. 154; Huey v. City of Altanta, 8 Ga. App. 597(2). 70 S. E. 71. If there were defects in the drum or tank, as alleged,......
-
Fulton Ice & Coal Co. v. Pece
... ... same as if the master was himself the owner of the ... premises." Georgia Railroad v. Hunter, 12 ... Ga.App. 295 (5), 77 S.E. 177 ... "Where ... one suffers an injury as the result of the concurring ... negligence of ... ...
-
Rowland Co v. H
...member of the Supreme Court, expressed a personal doubt as to the soundness of the rule in the Williams Case, in Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ga. 600, 604, 58 S. E. 154. The rule of the Williams Case, however, remains of force, with whatever applicability it may have, and the criti......