Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Duffy

• Decision Date: 09 August 1902
• Citation: 42 S.E. 510,116 Ga. 346
• Parties: CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. DUFFY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

42 S.E. 510

116 Ga. 346

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.

v.DUFFY.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 9, 1902.

RAILROADS—INJURY TO LICENSEE—EVIDENCE —WITNESS—RECALLING.

1. In an action against a railroad company for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by reason of the derailment and overturning of a car which the plaintiff was in, evidence that another car of the defendant was overturned on a nearby but different track, three months prior to the time the plaintiff's injuries were received, was not relevant toprove negligence on the part of the defendant at the time and place alleged in the petition; but in this case it appears that the failure to rule out such evidence worked no harm to the defendant.

2. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to permit a witness who has been examined, and after conference with counsel, to take the stand a second time, and correct his testimony as originally given; and such discretion will not be controlled unless it has been manifestly abused.

3. A railroad company cannot avoid liability for injuring one who is rightfully upon its train, by showing that its servants notified his employer to have him leave the train by a certain time, and that if the employer had acted upon this notice, and the plaintiff had left the train before that time, the injuries complained of would not have been inflicted.

4. Ignorance by the servants of a railroad company of the presence in one of its cars of one who was rightfully there will not, without more, relieve the company of liability for damage done by reason of its negligence. The circumstances must be such that the servants of the company had no reason to suspect his presence in the car.

5. It is not error for the trial judge upon the trial of an action for damages against a railroad company, in illustrating to the jury the method of using the mortality and annuity tables, to use for example a figure approximating that shown by the evidence to be the plaintiff's age.

6. The requests to charge, so far as legal and pertinent, were covered by the general charge; the amount of damages awarded by the jury was not excessive; and the evidence supported the verdict.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Macon; W. D. Nottingham, Judge.

Action by William Duffy against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Hall & Wimberly and J. E. Hall, for plaintiff in error.

Guerry & Hall and M. F. Hatcher, for defendant In error.

FISH. J. This was a suit for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the negligence of the defendant The petition alleged that, at the time the injuries complained of were inflicted, the plaintiff was employed by one Sanders as a laborer to sack and load corn in cars of the railroad company, which had been placed for that purpose on a track that was in its possession and under its control; that while he was in a car of the defendant, engaged in the performance of such work, the servants of the company, without warning to him, coupled an engine and cars to the car that he was in, and moved off with the train thus formed; that after going a short distance, and while moving at a moderate speed, the car that the plaintiff was in, owing to its defective condition and to defects in the track and roadway of the defendant, ran off the track and was turned over, as a result of which the plaintiff received the injuries on account of which he sued. The answer of the defendant denied all the material allegations of the petition. On the trial of the case the jury re turned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000 damages. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and it excepted.

1. One ground of the motion for a new trial complained that the court erred in refusing to rule out, on motion of counsel for the defendant below, certain evidence to the effect that, about three months prior to the time the plaintiff received his injuries, another car of the defendant had been overturned on a different track, but in the vicinity of the place where the car in which the plaintiff was at work when injured was derailed. This testimony was given by a witness for the plaintiff on cross-examination. The evidence was not relevant to prove negligence on the part of the defendant at the time and place of the injuries complained of. But in view of the fact that there was ample evidence to support a finding that the railroad company was negligent on the particular occasion when the plaintiff was injured, and that no harm appears to have been done the defendant by the refusal to exclude the objectionable evidence, this ground of the motion furnishes no reason for...