Cent. R.R. & Banking Co v. Summerford

• Decision Date: 13 July 1891
• Citation: 87 Ga. 626,13 S.E. 588
• Parties: Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Summerford.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

13 S.E. 588

87 Ga. 626

Central Railroad & Banking Co.

v.Summerford.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 13, 1891.

Railroad Companies—Stock-Killing Cases—Instructions.

1. Though the existence of the stock law is pertinent, and may be material on the question of ordinary and reasonable care and diligence in guarding against killing stock by the running of trains, yet a request to charge in general terms that a less degree of diligence is required in a county where that law prevails than in a county where it does not may be declined. The court may also decline a request to charge that a less degree of d i ligence in looking out for stock is required while running through a field than while running through lands uninclosed.

2. The evidence warranted the verdiot.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Lee county; Allen Fort, Judge.

Action by J. D. Sum in erf ord against the Central Railroad & Banking Company for killing stock., 1 udgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

G. W. Warwick and R. F. Lyon, for plaintiff in error.

C. B. Wooten and EL. L. Long, for defendant in error.

Bleckley, C. J. 1. The Code, in section 3033, declares that a railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to stock or other property by the running of the locomotives or cars, unless the company shall make it appear that their agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the company. This rule of diligence was not modified or altered by subsequent legislation known as the "stock law." Railroad v. Hamilton, 71 Ga. 461. With or without the stock law, the degree of diligence required of railroad companies is one and the same; it is " ordinary and reasonable." What would amount to that degree of diligence in each particular case under all the circumstances, including the application or non-application of the stock law at the particular locality, and including also the scene of the occurrence, whether in an inclosed field or upon uninclosed lands outside, is a question for the jury. The jury can and should take into consideration all the pertinent and material facts, and in the light of the whole determine whether the care and diligence observed in the particular instance came up to the degree of ordinary and reasonable, or fell below it. The instructions requested and refused in this case sought to relieve the company, or to authorize the jury to relieve it, from as high a degree of care at...