Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Barnitz

Decision Date11 May 1916
Docket Number6 Div. 332
Citation198 Ala. 156,73 So. 471
PartiesCENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. BARNITZ.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1916

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Action by Mrs. Charles Barnitz against the Central of Georgia Railway Company Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 70 So. 945. Petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Certiorari awarded, and case reversed and remanded.

Gardner J., dissenting.

London & Fitts and W.S. Brower, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

Frank S. White & Sons, of Birmingham, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The carrier's duty, stated with reference to the necessities of this case, is to put its passenger down safely and on time at the point of his contract destination. In the absence of special circumstances known to the carrier, it need not be concerned about the passenger's arrangements for the further prosecution of his journey. Waldrop v. N.C. & St L. Ry., 183 Ala. 226, 62 So. 769. A railroad journey is generally undertaken for some ulterior purpose; but the carrier's contract is only to take the passenger to a given destination on its line. "A traveler who sustains damages because of circumstances peculiar to himself cannot recover therefor unless he has given the carrier notice of the facts." 3 Suth.Dam. §§ 938, 939. For the proximate consequences of its negligent failure to perform its duty to a passenger, as alleged in this case, that is, for consequences that should in reason be anticipated as within the natural order of cause and effect and such as do in fact follow without negligence on the part of the passenger or the interposition of another independent cause, the carrier is liable. This court in a well-considered case, conforming to the authorities generally, has laid down the rule that a passenger who has been set down at a place other than his contract destination, without fault on his part, is entitled to recover damages for whatever expense, deprivation, delay vexation, anxiety, or suffering of mind or body he may have incurred in a reasonable effort to reach or return to the point of his contract destination, but that what happens to him afterwards cannot be considered as an element of recoverable damage, since, in general, such subsequent happenings do not follow in the ordinary course of events for which the carrier is required to take prevision. L. & N v. Quick, 125 Ala. 553, 28 So. 14. With that case the following are strictly in line: L. & N. v. Dancy, 97 Ala. 340, 11 So. 796; A.G.S. v. Sellers, 93 Ala. 9, 9 So. 375, 30 Am.St.Rep. 17; E.T.V. & G. v. Lockhart, 79 Ala. 315.

If in such case it is sought to extend the liability to damages of more remote consequence, they should be brought within the purview of the carrier's duty by allegation and proof that it had notice of the peculiar circumstances out of which they have arisen. Suth.Dam., supra; Irby v. Wilde, 150 Ala. 402, 43 So. 574; Vest v. Speakman, 153 Ala 393, 44 So. 1017. The ruling in Central of Georgia v. Morgan, 161 Ala. 486, 49 So. 865, is in no wise opposed to the case above. An inspection of the record in that case shows that no such question was raised. The elements of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Tri-State Transit Co. v. Martin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 7 Marzo 1938
    ...... "Proximate Result;" Burnside v. Gulf Refining Co.,. 166 Miss. 460, 148 So. 219; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Dorsey, 116 Ga. 719, 42 S.E. 1024; Cincinnati, N. O. & Texas Pacific R. Co. ... result of carrying beyond destination. . . Central. of Ga. Ry. v. Barnitz, 198 Ala. 156, 73 So. 471;. Gage v. I. C. Ry., 75 Miss. 17; L. & N. Ry. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, ......
  • Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Maddox, 6 Div. 92.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 20 Enero 1938
    ......575; Louisville &. Nashville R. R. Co. v. Bowen, 212 Ala. 690, 103 So. 872;. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Robertson, 203 Ala. 358, 83 So. 102; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. ...Montgomery St. Ry. Co., 123 Ala. 233,. 26 So. 349. And in Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Barnitz, 14 Ala.App. 354, 363, 70 So. 945, 949, it is. declared that "the carrier, if its servant was ......
  • Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 10 Mayo 1928
    ...... destination on time, and, after, giving reasonable notice. that it has reached such destination, stops at the fixed. place for passengers to disembark and remains standing a. sufficient length of time for them to safely alight. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Barnitz, 198 Ala. 156, 73. So. 471; Smith v. Ga. Pac. Ry. Co., 88 Ala. 538, 7. So. 119, 7 L.R.A. 323, 16 Am.St.Rep. 63; Richmond &. Danville R.R. Co. v. Smith, 92 Ala. 237, 9 So. 223;. Ala. City G. & A. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 173 Ala. 629, 55. So. 909; Southern Ry. Co. v. Herron, 12 Ala.App. 415, 68 So. ......
  • Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 23 Octubre 1924
    ......& N. R. Co. v. Clark, 205 Ala. 152, 87 So. 676, 14 A. L. R. 695; C. of G. Ry. Co. v. Barnitz, 198 Ala. 156, 73 So. 471, and. cases cited. It is of course equally applicable here, and the. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT