Ga. Pao. Ry. Co v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 11 July 1888
• Citation: 80 Ga. 727,7 S.E. 119
• Parties: Georgia Pao. Ry. Co. v. Richardson.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

7 S.E. 119

(80 Ga. 727)

Georgia Pao. Ry. Co.

v.Richardson.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 11, 1888.

Negligence—Pleading—Declaration—Sufficiency.

A declaration in an action against a railroad company for injuries received by plaintiff while crossing a trestle at night, which alleges that the engineer and fireman could have seen plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary diligence, and that if the engineer had blown the whistle, he could have fallen between the cross-ties, and escaped, in the absence of allegations that he made efforts to escape the injury, or that the engineer or fireman did see him, or that the engineer's neglect was willful, does not state a cause of action.¹

Error from superior court, Fulton county; Marshall J. Clarke, Judge.

The following is the declaration referred to in the opinion:

The petition of S. R. Richardson shows that the Georgia Pacific Railway Company, a corporation duly incorporated, has damaged him in the sum of $5,000, by reason of the following facts: On the 6th day of June, 1884, late in the evening, your petitioner was on the track of defendant, at the Tricka-jack trestle, in said state; he was knocked therefrom and injured by the running of defendant's locomotive and cars; and plaintiff further charges that this was without fault or negligence on his part, and was due to the negligence of defendant in running at too great rate of speed, and neglecting to ring its bell or blow its whistle as a warning to him, and in failing to havea good head-light, and in not checking speed of the train. Plaintiff carefully listened for an approaching train before he undertook to cross the bridge or trestle, but heard none. The trestle on bridge was so constructed that with safety plaintiff could have dropped down between the beams. The train of defendant approached from behind plaintiff. The universal custom of defendant was to blow its whistle just before reaching this place. This it failed to do. The plaintiff could have been seen from the engine for a considerable distance before the engine struck him. By said accident your petitioner's back and legs were injured. He was otherwise bruised. He incurred an expense of $100 for doctor's bills, nursing, and medicine. He has lost totally three months of time, and his capacity to earn money has been permanently diminished one-third. At the time of said accident your petitioner was 36 years old, and was able to earn from three to eight dollars per day. Your petitioner has suffered, still suffers, and will continue...