East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia R.R. v. Culler
| Decision Date | 27 October 1885 |
| Citation | 75 Ga. 704 |
| Parties | THE EAST TENNESSEE, VIRGINIA AND GEORGIA RAILROAD v. CULLER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
October Term, 1885.
Where suit was brought for the killing of a mule by a railroad train and on the trial only the engineer was sworn for the defendant, to show the use of all ordinary and reasonable care, although he testified that the fireman was engaged in firing at the time; and where there was a difference of opinion about the distance at which the mule could have been seen, and there was some conflict between the testimony of the engineer and statements testified by other witnesses to have been made by him as to reversing the engine and blowing on the brakes, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
( a. ) To rebut the presumption against the railroad company successfully, it is better that the agents of the company stationed on the engine should be all called.
Railroads. Negligence. Damages. New Trial. Before Judge PATE. Pulaski Superior Court. November Adjourned Term. 1884.
Culler brought suit against the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railroad for the killing of a mule. On the trial, the evidence for the plaintiff was, in brief, as follows: The mule was put in a lot in Cochran at night, but got out and went about one and a half to two miles; next morning it was found cut in half, lying beside the track of the defendant. The tracks of the animal indicated that it had gone up the railroad track, and had then turned and gone back to the point where it was killed. One witness said that its tracks indicated that it had been running. The distance at which such an obstruction could have been seen was estimated to be at least one hundred yards by one witness and forty or fifty by another. One witness testified that the engineer stated that he did not blow the whistle or reverse the engine; that he was only about ten feet from the mule when he discovered it, and it was too late to do so.
The defendant introduced the engineer, who testified, in brief as follows: Was running up grade and around a curve, about nine o'clock at night. Headlight was in perfect order but could not see more than fifteen or twenty yards on a straight track, on account of mist forming on glass. Was running about twelve or fifteen miles an hour, schedule speed. Saw obstruction about ten or fifteen feet ahead. It was at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial