Chattanooga & D. R. Co v. Voils

• Decision Date: 27 April 1901
• Citation: 38 S.E. 819,113 Ga. 361
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: CHATTANOOGA & D. R. CO. v. VOILS.

38 S.E. 819

113 Ga. 361

CHATTANOOGA & D. R. CO.

v.VOILS.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 27, 1901.

ACCIDENT AT CROSSING—INSTRUCTIONS.

Where, in an action against a railroad company for personal injuries alleged to have resulted from plaintiff's horse having become frightened by the improper and unnecessary emission of steam from one of the company's engines, one of the defendant's main defenses is that no steam whatever was at the time of the injury emitted from its engine, it is error for the court to fail to submit this issue to the jury in his charge. This is true although there was no request to charge upon this subject.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Walker county; W. M. Henry, Judge.

Action by M. F. Voils against the Chattanooga' & Durham Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Alex C. King and Copeland & Jackson, for plaintiff in error.

Payne & Payne, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. An action for damages was brought by Voils against the Chattanooga & Durham Railroad Company. The declaration alleged that he was driving his horse along a public road parallel to the railroad track, and that an engine of the defendant with several cars attached, approached, moving in a direction opposite to that in which he was going; that the engineer negligently allowed steam to be emitted from the engine; that the emission of the steam was improper, unnecessary, and wrongful; that the plaintiff's horse became frightened by the escaping steam, and that the plaintiff was thereby injured. The defendant, in its answer, denied all of the material allegations of the declaration. Upon the trial of the case the plaintiff, by his own testimony and that ofhis wife, who was with him at the time of the accident, sustained substantially the allegations of the declaration. The defendant's witnesses testified that upon the occasion when the plaintiff was injured no steam whatever was escaping from the engine; that the engine was going down grade, so that it was not necessary to use steam; and that the steam had been shut off, and none was being used or emitted. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant made a motion for a new trial. This was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The judge, in his charge to the jury, instructed them that the plaintiff, in order to make out a prima facie case, must show that he was injured in the manner alleged In the declaration, and made the usual charges in...