Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Owen

• Decision Date: 11 November 1904
• Parties: CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. OWEN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 916

121 Ga. 220

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. OWEN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 11, 1904

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a pedestrian in a city street, whose business made it necessary for him to cross certain railroad tracks lying across such street, found the crossing obstructed by a train of a railroad company, waited for 40 minutes or more, and the train not having moved, undertook to go around the end of the train, the railroad company is liable to him for injuries received by falling in a ditch while he was, in the exercise of ordinary care, making his way over the tracks and around the train. This is so whether the ditch was under the tracks of the offending railroad company or of another railroad company close by.

2. Though the evidence was conflicting as to some of the material issues in the case, the jury believed that for the plaintiff; and, the trial judge being satisfied with the verdict, this court will not control his discretion in refusing a new trial.

Error from City Court of Macon; Robt. Hodges, Judge.

Action by William Owen 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.

J. H Hall and M. G. Bayne, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS C.J.

Owen, a laboring man in the city of Macon, after the close of his day's work started down Elm street for the purpose of obtaining articles of food for his supper. He found the street obstructed by a train of the defendant company. He waited 20 or 25 minutes, but the train did not move. He then went around the block to where the track crosses Ash (the next) street, but found that street obstructed by the same train. He waited at this crossing for another 20 or 25 minutes. Being desirous of crossing in order to obtain the food for his supper, he undertook to go around the end of the train which was nearest Ash street. After he had gotten around the end of the train he heard and saw another train approaching him on another track very near to and parallel with that on which stood the train around which he was attempting to go. He stepped back around the latter train to avoid the one which was approaching, fell into an open ditch and broke his leg. On the trial of an action instituted by him against the railroad company he testified that he exercised ordinary care in attempting to go around the end of the train. The evidence for the plaintiff made out substantially the case stated above. The evidence for the defendant tended to show, first, that no train belonging to it had or could have remained on the crossings for the length of time stated by the plaintiff or been there at all at that time; second, that the plaintiff was not in the exercise of ordinary care in going around the end of the train as he was thoroughly familiar with the locality in which he was hurt; and, third, that he was not hurt upon the tracks of the defendant, but must have fallen in a ditch upon the property of another railroad company whose track was adjacent to those of defendant. The case was submitted to a jury under the charge of the court, and a verdict was...