Ga. R.R. & Banking Co v. Roughton

• Decision Date: 27 January 1900
• Citation: Ga. R.R. & Banking Co v. Roughton, 34 S.E. 1026, 109 Ga. 604 (Ga. 1900)
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. ROUGHTON.

34 S.E. 1026

109 Ga. 604

GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO.

v.ROUGHTON.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 27, 1900.

PLEADING—AMENDMENT—NEW CAUSE OF ACTION.

Inasmuch as the amendment to the petition alleged an entirely different act of negligence upon the part of the defendant as the cause of the plaintiff's injury, it set forth a new cause of action, and therefore should not have been allowed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Fulton county; J. H. Lumpkin, Judge.

Action by J. F. Roughton against the Geor-gia Railroad & Banking Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

The following is the official report:

Roughton sued the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the defendant's negligence. Upon announcement by the court that the general demurrer filed to the petition by the defendant would be sustained, plaintiff offered an amendment to the petition, to the allowance of which the defendant objected, on the ground that it added a new cause of action. The court overruled the objection, and allowed the amendment, whereupon the defendant excepted. According to the allegations of the plaintiff's original petition, there was a spur track of the defendant which ran along Badger street, and across Born street, in the city of Atlanta. The defendant had left cars standing on this spur track, in such a position that a pedestrian could not get from Badger street onto the sidewalk of Born street without going into the middle of the latter street, at its junction with Badger, and going around such cars. "Said cars were so left that the light from an electric light, which is placed there, was shut off that portion of said street over which petitioner was compelled to travel, and petitioner, for said reason, could not see his way. The ground at the end of said car where petitioner was compelled to walk was rough and uneven, the ground was covered with snow and ice, and was quite slippery. In going around said car. which petitioner was compelled to do to get to the sidewalk, he slipped and fell, breaking two of his ribs, and otherwise hurting and bruising himself." There were no other allegations of negligence. The amendment practically reiterated the allegations of the original petition, with the following material addition: "That at the end of said cars defendant company had during that day, and since plaintiff had passed along that morning, going to his store, dumped and left unscattered a pile of dirt and old brickbats, which had become frozen and hard, where plaintiff was compelled to walk around said cars, which made the ground rough and uneven, it being also covered with sleet and ice; and said pile of dirt and brick could not be seen, owing to said light being shut off by the cars, as aforesaid, and no signal or warning of any kind left to put persons on notice of the rough place. The sidewalk upon which he had a...