East Tenn. v. & G. Ry. Co

Decision Date19 March 1894
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court
PartiesEAST TENNESSEE V . & G. RY. CO. v. REYNOLDS.

Injury to Railroad Employe?/span>Slipping on Defective Cross-ties?/span>Liability of Company.

Although the coming apart of the train, and the running back of a portion of it, may have been the result of the engineer's negligence, and have made it necessary for the conductor to go back and flag an approaching train, yet, as the immediate and proximate cause of his injury was his slipping and falling upon a cross-tie forming a part of a trestle, the injury was a mere casualty incident to the business in which the plaintiff was engaged, and he was not entitled to recover. This is true, although there was upon the edge of the cross-tie a small bit of decayed sap, the breaking of which from the tie itself caused the plaintiff's fall. There was no negligence of the company, relatively to the plaintiff, in having a defective cross-tie, the purpose of having ties not being to make a way for employes to walk upon, but to make a safe roadbed for the running of trains.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Whitfield county; T. W. Milner, Judge.

Action by John W. Reynolds against the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

McCutchen & Shumate, for plaintiff in error.

R. J. & J. McCamy, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN, J. In this case a new trial should have been granted, because, under the facts in evidence, the plaintiff was not entitled to a recovery. The freight train upon which the plaintiff was a conductor having stopped for some reason, he started forward to ascertain from the engineer the cause of the stop, at the same time sending a flagman back on the track with a red light for the purpose of warning a train which was following in his rear. Before the conductor reached the engineer, the latter started the train, when, by the breaking of a link, it came apart, and the rear portion, upon which the conductor then was, began to roll backward down the track, and, in so doing, passed the flagman already mentioned. The conductor, by applying the brakes, succeeded in stopping the detached portion of the train, and then undertook to go back on the track himself for the purpose of warning the approach, ing train in time to avoid a collision. That train was not then in sight. The track in the direction from which the train was approaching was perfectly straight for a mile or more, and the headlight of an approaching engine could, without difficulty, have been seen for a considerable distance, although it was a dark and rainy night. In going back to signal this train, the conductor started across a trestle in great haste, and, when about halfway across, he stepped on a cross-tie, on the top of which was a small bit of decayed sap, which slipped off or came loose from the tie, causing him to fall and to become seri ously injured. The flagman already mentioned was the only train hand the conductor had with him; another flagman who started on the trip having become injured at a station the train had passed before reaching the place of the accident, and being, in consequence, unable to continue upon the jour, ney. This fact explains why the conductor himself went back to flag the train following his own. The above, in brief, sets forth the substantial facts of the case. The declaration alleged that the coming apart of the train resulted from the engineer's negligence, and that the company was also negligent in having a defective cross-tie in the trestle.

Granting that the engineer was negligent as charged, we do not think this negligence was,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Seabd. Air Line Ry v. Bishop
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1909
    ...a dangerous position in the load of the car. The cases of Lee v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 86 Ga. 232, 12 S. E. 307, E. Tenn., etc., Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 93 Ga. 570, 20 S. E. 70, Rome R. Co. v. Thompson, 101 Ga. 26, 28 S. E. 429, and Savannah, etc., Ry. Co. v. Flaherty, 110 Ga. 335, 35 S. E. 6......
  • Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Bishop
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1909
    ...along the track. Nor was there any reason shown why the plaintiff stepped on the clinker. In the case of E. Tenn. Ry. Company, in 93 Ga. 570, 20 S.E. 70, a conductor walked the track to flag an approaching train, and slipped on a cross-tie, on the edge of which was a small bit of decayed sa......
  • Culbreath v. M. Kutz Co, (No. 17979.)
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 1927
    ...E. 438; Caudell v. Hardaway Contracting Co., 146 Ga. 48, 90 S. E. 470; Balch v. Carling, 102 Ga. 586, 29 S. E. 146; East Tenn. Ry. Co. v. Reynolds, 93 Ga. 570, 20 S. E. 70; Fulton Ice Co. v. Fece, 29 Ga. App. 507(2), 519, and cases cited, 116 S. E. 57. The rule is otherwise where an instrum......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1912
    ... ... himself. Civil Code, § 3131; Stewart v. Seaboard AirLine ... Ry., 115 Ga. 624, 41 S.E. 981; East Tenn. R. Co. v ... Reynolds, 93 Ga. 570, 20 S.E. 70 ...          (a) In ... order for a servant to recover for an injury on the ground ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT