Georgia Coast & P.R. Co. v. Smith
Decision Date | 15 May 1918 |
Docket Number | 9383. |
Citation | 95 S.E. 1017,22 Ga.App. 332 |
Parties | GEORGIA COAST & P. R. CO. v. SMITH. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The excerpts from the charge of the court complained of were not when considered with the remainder of the charge, erroneous for any reason assigned.
There was some evidence authorizing the jury to find that the killing of the mule was due to the negligence of the railroad employés in running the train; and, the trial judge having approved the verdict, this court will not interfere.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Negligence like any other fact, may be established by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence.
Error from Superior Court, Liberty County; W. W. Sheppard, Judge.
Action by Bert Smith against the Georgia Coast & Piedmont Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, motion for new trial overruled, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
p>Page Collins & Stanfield, of Reidsville, for plaintiff in error.
Way & Burkhalter, of Reidsville, for defendant in error.
HARWELL J. (after stating the facts as above).
Where stock is killed by the running of the cars of a railroad company, and there is some evidence other than the presumption against the company, authorizing the jury to find that the employés in charge of the train were negligent, and that the killing was the result of that negligence, a verdict against the railroad company should not be disturbed. Negligence, like any other fact, may be established by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence. In Southern Railway Co. v. Carter, 139 Ga. 237, 77 S.E. 21, Mr. Justice Beck said:
In Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Dozier, 117 Ga. 793, 45 S.E. 67, it was said:
See, also, Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Harden, 113 Ga. 455, 38 S.E. 949; Id., 114 Ga. 548, 40 S.E. 738.
In the Harden Case a mule was killed, and the employés in charge of the train testified that they did all that they could to prevent the killing. There was, however, some evidence of tracks showing that the mule had run down the railroad, and the Supreme Court finally upheld the verdict against the railroad company, the court stating that there was some evidence to sustain the jury's finding. Compare also the following cases: Sou. Ry. Co. v. Lang, 11 Ga.App. 8 74 S.E. 443; Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co. v. Strickland, 125 Ga. 352, 54 S.E. 168; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Patton, 10 Ga.App. 678, 73 S.E. 1075; Ga. Sou. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Tyson, 11 Ga.App. 233, 74 S.E. 1098; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Chastain, 15 Ga.App. 707, 84 S.E. 167; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Trammell & McCowan, 114 Ga. 312, 40 S.E. 259 (4). "It was for the jury to determine whether or not the explanation offered in behalf of the defendant completely rebutted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ga. Coast & P. R. Co v. Smith
...22 Ga.App. 33295 S.E. 1017GEORGIA COAST & P. R. CO.v.SMITH.(No. 9383.)Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.May 15, 1918.(Syllabus by the Court.)The excerpts from the charge of the court complained of were not, when considered with the ... ...