Cent. R.R. v. Coggin

• Decision Date: 30 September 1884
• Citation: 73 Ga. 689
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: Central Railroad. vs. Coggin.

73 Ga. 689

Central Railroad. vs. Coggin.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

SEPTEMBER TERM, 1884.

Railroads. Negligence. Age. Witness. Evidence. Before Judge Simmons. Bibb Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1883.

Coggin brought case against the Central Railroad tore-cover $10,000.00 as damages for a personal injury. The case will be found fully reported in 62 Ga., 685. To an understanding of the questions now made, it will only be necessary to state that the evidence for the plaintiff showedin brief, the following facts: Under a contract between the Western Union Telegraph Company and the Macon and Western Railroad, the poles of the former were being delivered along the line of the latter. There was a conductor, White, and an engineer, Orr, on the train, who controlled its movements. Plaintiff was one of the hands of the telegraph company, under the control of one Awtry, the foreman. The poles were piled on flat cars. Three hands were engaged in throwing poles from the car. It did not stop, but moved slowly along at a uniform speed, and the heavy end of the pole was cast off, and the entire pole was thus pulled from the train by its own weight and the motion of the car. Two other hands on the same car were engaged in placing the poles in position. Plaintiff was one of these. While the train was running on a slight up-grade, and while plaintiff had hold of the end of the pole, the train jerked violently, so that he relaxed his hold, fell from the car and was run over and injured. The speed had been slackened to allow the switchman, who had just changed the switch, to get on; and the increase of speed occurred without any warning. If steam is shut off from an engine, the box-cars run up on the engine; and the effect of shutting off steam was to make the cars run up on the engine and make a little "slack." There was no necessity for the jerk at the place, so far as he could see; a skillful engineer can avoid jerks to a certain extent. He has since had two years\' experience in running an engine. The injury occurred near a switch. After testifying substantially to these facts, plaintiff further stated that, as the train passed the switch going up, the engineer was in a hurry to make a station above, in order to meet the night passenger train, and as he slacked up for the switchman to get on the train, he seemed to have shut off his engine, " and he opened his engine right suddenly, I suppose." Didn\'t know what the engineer was doing; all that he knows is that the train was running along very slowly, and a sudden jerk threw him down. He knew it was the jerk of the engine, from experience and sense. He hadno experience at the time as to running of engines. He knew the jerk was from the engine. He heard the exhaust of the engine when it started off. By exhaust is meant the steam escaping from the engine, and that cannot be done while the engine is standing still; and he heard the exhaust just about the time he was jerked. When you stop the engine, running up or down hill, or on a level, the cars run up on the engine. They never run backwards. The jerk is caused by the taking up of the " slack " between the couplings. When an engine is stopped and there is a "slack, " and it starts off, as it pulls up the slack it jerks each car, and when there is no slack there is no jerk, no matter how much steam is put on. If the couplings are all stretched out to the fullest extent and the couplings are all taut, there is no jerk only at the last car, and if that is also taut, the whole train moves off like a piece of solid wood, if in the hands of a skillful engineer. The train left Macon an hour after the appointed time. The engineer came back, and was excited and hurried. He wanted to reach the station above, so as to meet the down passenger train.

On the subject of the extent of the loss caused by his injury, plaintiff testified, in brief, as follows: Was sixteen years old at the time; was twenty-one on the 8th of February, 1875. He was receiving $40.00 a month at the time and his board; he rates his board at $15.00 per month. Is not able to perform the same duties now as he was then. Sometimes can't stand a half hour on his leg, but has to rest. Has a dead aching which has continued ever since it was done—most violent in cloudy weather. No human being can explain the pain he suffered when the injury was done; had rather be shot or cut through. Has tried to learn the painter's trade, and has been working at it since, but on account of his injuries cannot stand on a ladder, but has to stand on the ground. Does sign painting, and if he could get plenty could make a living. With his capacity, could make from $3.50 to $3.00 a day, if he could work all the time. As it is, does not make $1.50 aday. His capacity for labor has been diminished one-half.

There was other testimony as to the nature of the injury, etc., not material here.

The evidence for the defendant was, in brief, as follows: Awtry was the foreman of the telegraph squad, and the train was to be run as he instructed. He instructed the engineer, and if the engine ran too slow or too fast, required him to change accordingly. He was on the engine with the engineer, conductor, fireman and wood-passer. He was there to show the men how to drop the poles and to tell the engineer how to run. The latter was a good, experienced and careful engineer, and the train was running slowly on a steep up-grade. It was not checked for the person who changed the switch, to get on, nor was there any slacking. The steam was not taken off or put on suddenly. At the speed at which the train was going and with the load which it had, the putting on of steam could not have produced a jerk, but would only have caused the speed to increase. If the steam had been suddenly taken off, the train would have stopped almost immediately; the car wheels would have rolled up a little towards the engine, but would have gone back as soon as they stopped, until the coupling became taut again. The engineer testified that, with the speed at which they were going, he did not suppose that the car would have run up on the engine at all. He denied being behind time or in a bad humor, or that there was any complaint of him made that morning. The conductor had charge of the train generally, but it was run according to the instructions of Awtry as to speed and stoppages. The train had no regular schedule time, but was run slowly for the purpose of distributing the telegraph poles, and they had only to keep out of the way of regular trains. There was no putting on or taking off of steam, and no sudden jerking.

There was other evidence, in some respects conflicting, but it is not material to be set out here. The jury found for the plaintiff $1, 250.00. Defendant moved for a new trial, on the grounds set out in the decision, which motion was overruled, and exception was taken.

R. F. Lyon, for plaintiff in error.

Bacon & Rutherford, for defendant.

Hall, Justice.

The jury having found a verdict for the...