Cotchett v. Savannah & T. Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 17 March 1890
• Citation: 84 Ga. 687,11 S.E. 553
• Parties: Cotchett. v. Savannah & T. Ry. Co.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

11 S.E. 553

84 Ga. 687

Cotchett.

v.Savannah & T. Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 17, 1890.

Injury to Passengers—Evidence.

In an action by a passenger for personal injuries, where the evidence shows that plaintiff started into another car to get water while the train was moving slowly, but stopped a minute on the platform to talk, and, just as he was passing on, the coupling-pin broke, and the cars parted, throwing him off, it is error to direct a nonsuit on the ground that plaintiff was not in the exercise of ordinary care.

Error from city court of Savannah; Harden, Judge.

Cotchett sued the railroad company for damages for personal injuries. Upon the trial of the case, the evidence for plaintiff was that on the night of 17th of August, 1887, he was a passenger on defendant's train coming to Savannah from Tybee. It was an excursion train, and there were a large number of people on it. The train was going very slowly at the time plaintiff was hurt. He was sitting in one of the cars, and when the train was about to stop got up to get some water. There was none in the car where he had been sitting, so he started into the next car. He got to the platform of the next car, and stopped there a minute to speak to a man. As he was in the act of starting on, he put his right foot in the doorway of the car, and raised his left foot, when the cars separated. He was thrown off, and the car-wheel went over his foot, crushing it so that it had to be amputated. The car was going very slowly. The immediate cause of his falling was the breaking of the link or of the coupling-pin. Plaintiff was perfectly sober at the time of the accident. If the pin or link had not broken, he would not have fallen, but this breaking caused the automatic air-brakes to stop the car suddenly, and the jerk thus caused threw him out. Plaintiff did not recollect that there was any sign or notice on the door requesting the passengers not to stand on the platform, although there may have been one, as there generally is, on passen-ger coaches. There was some evidence tending to show that the couplings or the pins used by defendant were small, suitable for light suburban work, but not for heavy work, and more apt to break than the larger couplings. There was evidence as to the extent of the injury, suffering, loss of time, medical expenses, etc., not necessary to be here set forth. The court granted a nonsuit, basing its judgment upon the ground that the evidence of plaintiff showed that he...