Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 14 July 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 810,111 Ga. 528
• Parties: CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. EDWARDS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

36 S.E. 810

111 Ga. 528

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. EDWARDS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 14, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An employé who has suffered a physical injury cannot maintain therefor an action against his master merely because there may have been on the part of the latter negligent acts or omissions, which, though they may to some extent have contributed to bringing about a dangerous situation, in which the employýe did an act from which the injury directly resulted, were not themselves the cause of the injury.

2. The only alleged act of negligence on the part of the defendant which could in the present case have been fairly found to have been a contributing cause of the injury not having been shown to be in fact an act of negligence, it was error not to have granted a nonsuit.

Error from superior court, Effingham county; Paul E. Seabrook Judge.

Action by H. L. Edwards against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant brings error. Reversed.

Lawton & Cunningham, for plaintiff in error.

Twiggs & Oliver, for defendant in error.

LITTLE J.

It appeared from the petition of Edwards, who instituted an action against the plaintiff in error to recover damages for a personal injury which he sustained, that he was an employé of the Central of Georgia Railway Company, as brakeman on a freight train, at the time he received his injuries; that the train consisted of an engine and about 50 freight cars besides on caboose. The plaintiff alleged: That on the day he was injured the train was running 40 minutes behind its schedule time, because of a defective driving rod, and of the large number of cars which were attached to the engine. That owing to its delayed schedule, the train upon which he was employed was forced to enter a siding at Brewer, a station on the Central road, to clear the main line for the passage of a passenger train going in the same direction as the freight train. That sufficient side tracks for the passage of trains had not been provided, because the east switch of the side track had been temporarily removed, and it was necessary for the freight train to pass entirely beyond the west switch of the side track, and then back onto such siding. As the freight train was passing over the west switch at about the speed of 7 or 8 miles per hour, the plaintiff was standing on top of a car about 10 or 12 car lengths behind the engine. The conductor of the train was also standing on the top of a car, a few car lengths behind the plaintiff. That, when the train was passing over the west switch, the conductor wishing to put his train on the side track as soon as possible in order to avoid a collision with the passenger train which was following, ordered the plaintiff to jump off of the freight train, for the purpose of changing the switch as soon as it became clear. That in obedience to the order the plaintiff, alleging that he was in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care, proceeded to alight from the train, and, when he jumped from the ladder of the car on which he had been standing, was unable clearly to see the ground beneath him, and consequently his right foot, when he reached the ground, became fastened in the frog of the switch,--such frog not having been blocked so as to prevent the foot of the plaintiff from becoming fastened therein,--and the wheels of the car crushed and mangled his foot so that he never can have free use of the same, and that his left leg was badly broken, and is now one inch shorter than its natural length, and the ankle of the left foot is stiff and useless. The acts of negligence on the part of the railroad company, its officers, and servants, are alleged to be as follows: First, in allowing the driving rod and other machinery of the engine to get into a condition of disrepair, and thereby to cause the train to run behind its schedule time; second, in overloading with 50 cars the engine of said train, and thereby to cause said train to run behind its schedule time; third, in not maintaining and allowing to remain where it had been placed the switch at the east end of said track, and thereby to have avoided the necessity for the plaintiff to jump from the moving train, even though a collision was imminent, and in failing to protect said train so as to have avoided the imminence of a collision; fourth, in maintaining and using a switch, the frog of which was not properly blocked and guarded for the prevention of like casualties. That there was in use among railway companies, known to the defendant, a simple device, efficient and sufficient for the blocking and guarding of the switch frog, so that, had the frog been blocked and guarded by such device, the plaintiff would not have suffered the injuries described, and that the defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the frog was not blocked and guarded. Plaintiff alleges that when he received such injuries he was entirely without fault, and in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care. The defendant answered, denying each and every allegation of every paragraph of the petition. The plaintiff, after having shown the fact that he was very seriously and permanently injured, testified in his own behalf: That he was employed as brakeman on the freight train, which had about 50 cars, half of them loaded, and that such a great number of cars was unusual. That the train was late, on account of the crank pin of the driving rod being hot. That Guyton was five miles from Brewer, where he was injured. That there was a side track there sufficient to have held the train. That Egypt was the passing point for the freight and passenger, but that in fact on that day these trains passed at Brewer, because the freight was overtaken by the passenger at Brewer. That when the freight train came to Brewer the plaintiff was on top of a box car about seven cars from the engine. That the conductor was on top of a box car several car lengths behind him. That he looked back to the conductor for signals, and when the train was near the west switch the conductor signaled plaintiff, and pointed down to the switch and back to the passenger train. Plaintiff looked, and saw that the passenger train was about the length of the freight train behind. The conductor pointed as if he desired the plaintiff to get down at once on the west end of the side track. That the east switch had been taken up, and had it been there the train would have stopped and pulled in, and it would not then have been the duty of the plaintiff to change the switch. At the time he jumped he thought he had passed the switch. The frog was not blocked at the time of his injury, but afterwards was blocked with wood, so that it was impossible for a person to get his foot into the frog. This was the first time that he ever remembered to have seen one of the switches on the Central Railroad...