Foster v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1931
• Docket Number: 20725.
• Citation: 157 S.E. 371,42 Ga.App. 830
• Parties: FOSTER v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

157 S.E. 371

42 Ga.App. 830

FOSTER v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.

No. 20725.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

February 28, 1931

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In petition to recover damages for homicide of plaintiff's husband, negligence of decedent barring recovery was matter of defense.

Complaint for homicide charging simple negligence only may be amended to allege homicide resulted from defendant's willfulness or wantonness.

Amendment relating to same cause of action, in separate count, is not objectionable because allegations therein contradict allegations in original petition.

Plaintiff may allege contradictory versions of same transaction if set forth in separate counts constituting complete causes of action that may be joined.

Amendment to petition is not objectionable because not offered until after term of court to which suit was returnable (Civ. Code 1910, § 5681).

Allegations that railroad, sued for death of decedent at crossing, was required to maintain watchman and signals at crossing, not showing duty was not complied with or that railroad was negligent in failing to perform duty, held demurrable.

Breach of private rules of railroad cannot be made basis for substantive cause of action for injury to member of traveling public.

Error from Superior Court, Spalding County; Wm. E. H. Searcy, Jr. Judge.

Suit by Edna Foster against the Southern Railway Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Harwell Fairman & Barrett, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Arnold & Battle, of Columbus, for defendants in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

BELL J.

1. In the instant suit for damages for the homicide of the plaintiff's husband, whether or not the petition should be construed as disclosing that the crossing at which the decedent was killed was such a public crossing that the statutory requirements (Ga. L. 1929, p. 315) were applicable the allegations were sufficient to show, as against a general demurrer, that the defendant was guilty of negligence in the failure to observe certain precautions, the nonobservance of which amounted to negligence under the circumstances. Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Reed, 35 Ga.App. 538 (1), 134 S.E. 134; Georgia, Southwestern & Gulf Ry. v. Lasseter, 39 Ga.App. 393, 147 S.E. 166; Id., 41 Ga.App. 154, 152 S.E. 267. It did not affirmatively appear from the petition that the decedent was himself guilty of such negligence as to bar a recovery, and, this being a matter of defense, the petition set forth a cause of action, and was not subject to the general demurrer interposed. Georgia R. Co. v. Stanley, 38 Ga.App. 773 (1), 145 S.E. 530; Clements v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.,

41 Ga.App. 310 (2), 152 S.E. 849; Hadaway v. Southern Ry. Co., 41 Ga.App. 669, 154 S.E. 296; Southern Ry. Co. v. Slaton, 41 Ga.App. 759 (3), 154 S.E. 718.

2. A complaint for damages for a homicide, which charges simple negligence only, may be amended by adding a new count alleging that the homicide was the result of willfulness or wantonness on the part of the defendant. Such an amendment complains of the same wrong, and merely varies the allegations as to the quality of the defendant's act, and hence does not set forth a new and distinct cause of action. "There can be but one cause of action for the homicide of any one man." Harris v. Central Railroad, 78 Ga. 525 (1), 531, 3 S.E. 355, 357. See, also, in this connection, City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785 (5), 48 S.E. 318; Strachan Shipping Co. v. Hazlip-Hood Co., 161 Ga. 480, 131 S.E. 283; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Burnham, 123 Ga. 29 (1), 50 S.E. 984; Flynt v. Southern Ry. Co., 7 Ga.App. 313 (2), 66 S.E. 957; Id., 9 Ga.App. 757 (2), 72 S.E. 189; Dundee Woolen Mills v. Edison, 17 Ga.App. 245 (3), 86 S.E. 414; Keiley v. Bristol, 30 Ga.App. 725 (1), 119 S.E. 334; Blanchard v. Ogletree, 41 Ga.App. 4, 8, 152 S.E. 116; 45 C.J. 1090, § 663, citing Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Foshee, 125 Ala. 199, 27 So. 1006; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Markee, 103 Ala. 160, 15 So. 511, 49 Am.St.Rep. 21.

3. An amendment relating to the same cause of action, but embodied in a separate count, is not objectionable because the allegations made therein are contradictory of those in the original petition. "A plaintiff may, in one petition, set out as many contradictory versions of the same transaction as he deems advisable to meet the probable evidence, provided each separate version is set forth in a separate and distinct count, itself constituting a complete cause of action of such a nature that it may properly be joined with the other alleged causes of action, and varies from all the other counts in some material particular." Miller v. Southern Ry. Co., 21 Ga.App. 367 (5), 94 S.E. 619; Gainesville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Austin, 122 Ga. 823 (3), 50 S.E. 983; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Prior, 142 Ga. 536 (1), 83 S.E. 117; National Surety Co. v. Farmers' State Bank, 145 Ga. 461 (1), 89 S.E. 581.

4. An amendment to a petition which is otherwise allowable is not subject to objection because it was not offered until after the expiration of the term of court to which the suit was made returnable. Civ. Code 1910, § 5681.

5. The averments in the petition and in the amendment, respectively, that it was the duty of the defendant railway company under the circumstances, to station a watchman, and also to install an automatic signalling device or gate, at the crossing, not having been accompanied or followed by any sort of allegation that such duty was not complied with, or that the defendant company was guilty of negligence in a failure to perform such duty, the defendants' demurrers and objections to such averments were properly sustained. Ellison v. Georgia R. Co., 87 Ga. 691 (4), 699, 13 S.E. 809. Upon this point, the instant case is distinguished from Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Barnett, 35 Ga.App. 528 (1 a), 134 S.E. 126, since in that case the petition alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain an automatic gate or watchman at the crossing.

6. Although the rules adopted by a railway company governing the conduct of its employees in the...