Chattanooga Southern R. Co. v. Wheeler

• Citation: 50 S.E. 987,123 Ga. 41
• Parties: CHATTANOOGA SOUTHERN R. CO. v. WHEELER.
• Decision Date: 13 May 1905
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

50 S.E. 987

123 Ga. 41

CHATTANOOGA SOUTHERN R. CO. v. WHEELER.

Supreme Court of Georgia

May 13, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

A railway company is not, relatively to one who has no business to transact with it, but who goes to its station at the instance of a third person to look after some private property, which he has without the company's permission stored in a warehouse which it has practically abandoned and allowed to become out of repair, under any duty to keep the building and its approaches in a safe condition for use by persons entering or leaving the same.

Error from Superior Court, Chattooga County; W. M. Henry, Judge.

Action by W. T. Wheeler against the Chattanooga Southern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

J. M Bellah and Pritchard & Sizer, for plaintiff in error.

Wesley Shropshire, for defendant in error.

EVANS J.

A suit for damages was brought by W. T. Simmons against the Chattanooga Southern Railroad Company, the plaintiff alleging that he had sustained personal injuries by reason of having fallen through a platform built around a station house belonging to the defendant company, which platform the company had failed to keep in repair or in a safe condition for use by the public. Pending the action the plaintiff died and his administrator, J. V. Wheeler, was made a party plaintiff in his stead. The case was three times tried, the last trial resulting in a verdict against the railroad company. It is here complaining of a judgment overruling its motion for a new trial, and also of the refusal of the court to grant a nonsuit.

The plaintiff based his right to a recovery upon the following allegations of fact: At Chelsea the defendant company had a depot and warehouse wherein goods were stored whilst awaiting shipment from that station or delivery after shipment to its patrons. It maintained a platform attached to the building over which ingress to and egress from the building was had by members of the public who had business to transact with the company. On or about May 8, 1900, plaintiff "was superintending the sale or delivery of guano for one Tom Knox, which had been shipped to said Knox over defendant's said road and stored for delivery in said warehouse." He entered the warehouse, as he had the right and privilege to do, for the purpose of attending to his duties in connection with the delivery of this guano, and also "for the purpose of seeing after some other goods or freight in said warehouse in which petitioner was interested." After attending to the matters in hand, he started out of the warehouse and went upon and along the platform. The supports under the platform had become rotten and decayed, the floor suddenly gave way beneath plaintiff and he received a violent fall and serious injury. The plaintiff's petition undoubtedly stated a case showing liability on the part of the company. The proof offered in his behalf, however, fell far short of proving his case as laid. The following facts were brought...