Georgia, C. & N. Ry. Co. v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 02 December 1895
• Citation: 24 S.E. 34,97 Ga. 381
• Parties: GEORGIA, C. & N. RY. CO. v. WATKINS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

24 S.E. 34

97 Ga. 381

GEORGIA, C. & N. RY. CO. v. WATKINS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

December 2, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The charge, as a whole, fairly submitted the issues involved and, in so far as it dealt with the question as to what degree of diligence should be required of the plaintiff, was substantially in accord with the rulings of this court in Rhodes v. Railroad Co., 10 S.E. 922, 84 Ga. 320 Railroad Co. v. Phillips, 17 S.E. 952, 91 Ga. 527 and Railway Co. v. Hughes, 17 S.E. 949, 92 Ga. 388.

2. If additional instructions as to the presumptive capacity of a person above the age of 14 years would have been pertinent or appropriate, they should have been specially requested.

3. The evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to set it aside.

Error from city court of Atlanta; T. P. Westmoreland, Judge.

Action by William W. Watkins, by his next friend, against the Georgia, Carolina & Northern Railway Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report:

The plaintiff, a boy of 15 years, went with his father and brother upon an excursion from Atlanta to Lawrenceville. Returning on the evening of the same day, he mounted the steps of one of the cars in the train, intending to go inside of the car. He was not then with his father or brother. The train was crowded, and the platforms of this car and the one next were filled with persons standing thereon; and plaintiff failed to get further than the step on which he was standing holding to the iron railings. The train moved off, and, after running a short distance, the step on which he was standing struck a rock or other obstruction close by the track, shattering the step, and throwing plaintiff to the ground, bruising him, and breaking his kneecap, from which he endured intense pain, and was still suffering from the injury two years after it occurred. He obtained a verdict for $400, and a motion by the railroad company for a new trial was overruled. The motion alleged that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and assigned errors on the following parts of the charge to the jury: "The degree of diligence that the law requires of the plaintiff was that care which would reasonably be expected of a boy of his age and capacity. You heard the testimony as to his age; you saw him when he was upon the...