Georgia Northern R. Co. v. Stains
| Decision Date | 11 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 34497,No. 1,34497,1 |
| Citation | 75 S.E.2d 833,88 Ga.App. 6 |
| Parties | GEORGIA NORTHERN R. CO. v. STAINS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The petition, in an action by a guest against a railroad company for injuries sustained when the automobile in which the guest was riding collided with the defendant's train, which was partially occupying a public crossing, showed that the driver of the automobile could have seen the defendant's train on the crossing in time to stop before striking it, and thus showed conclusively that the defendant's alleged negligence, if any, did not contribute to or concur with the driver's negligence as the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and the court erred in overruling the demurrers to the petition.
Walter Stains, Jr., a minor, brought this suit by next friend against Georgia Northern Railway Company. In his petition, the plaintiff alleged in substance the following: The defendant railway corporation is a common carrier operating a line of railroad from Moultrie to Albany, Georgia. The defendant's main line passes through the Town of Bridgeboro, Georgia; and the main street of that town is State Highway 112, which is 22 feet wide and paved, running from Camilla to Sylvester, Georgia. Proceeding from Camilla towards Bridgeboro and Sylvester, this highway curves to the left and then runs straight in a northerly direction for about 50 yards to the place where the defendant's main line crosses the highway in an east-west direction. The defendant's main line at this point is a double-track railroad. The tracks of the Georgia, Sylvester and Camilla Railroad cross Highway 112 about 50 feet south of the defendant's crossing. There is an old wooden depot, approximately 60 feet wide, 60 feet high and 100 feet long, standing about 30 feet east of the tracks of the Georgia, Sylvester and Camilla Railroad and about 40 feet to the right, or east, of the highway, and this building completely blocks off the view of a train approaching from the right, or east, on the defendant's main line to motorists traveling from Camilla to Bridgeboro and around the curve on Highway 112. This old building makes it impossible for one traveling north towards Bridgeboro on the highway to see the defendant's trains approaching from the right until he is within 35 to 40 feet of the defendant's main line, which also curves to the left about 100 feet before it crosses the highway. On the night of April 1, 1952, after dark and at about 8 p.m., the plaintiff was riding as a guest in an automobile driven by John E. Smoak; the plaintiff had no control over the operation of the automobile, which was proceeding from Camilla east on Highway 112. The driver had slowed the automobile for the curve, was proceeding around it at a reasonable speed not exceeding the limits prescribed by law, had passed over the tracks of the Georgia, Sylvester and Camilla Railroad, and was about 40 feet from the defendant's crossing when the plaintiff and the driver of the car observed the defendant's one-car train on the track and being operated by an employee of the defendant. It was stopped on the tracks, blocking the right or east half of Highway 112. Another freight train of the defendant railroad was about 50 yards to the plaintiff's right, on one of the tracks, and was standing still with its headlights burning. The train parked on the right half of the highway was completely blocked [blacked?] out, with only a small electric light burning in front, and it was not visible to one approaching on the highway from the side. The driver of the car was not familiar with the crossing and highway, and had never driven across it before at night. When the plaintiff was about 40 feet from the tracks, and the automobile was on the right side of the road, another automobile appeared coming down the incline in the opposite direction, approaching the crossing from the opposite side, and the headlights on this automobile blinded the plaintiff and the driver of the car at about the same time. The driver of the automobile immediately slammed on his brakes and skidded the car into the right front of the parked train, and the plaintiff sustained certain serious injuries. At the time of the impact, the automobile was traveling at 28 miles per hour. The plaintiff's injuries were proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant and its employee in the following respects: (1) in that the locomotive was not equipped with a headlight consuming not less than 300 watts at the are as required by law; (2) in that the locomotive was not equipped with a reflector not less than 23 inches in diameter as required by law; (3) in that the engineer, who had traveled over said crossing for more than six months, with full knowledge of the said obstruction and that his train was not properly lighted and was blacked out and blocking the right half of the public crossing, failed to exercise ordinary care and did not keep and maintain a lookout along the track and the highway, ahead of and to the sides of the engine, while within the Town of Bridgeboro; (4) in that the engineer failed to toll the bell of the locomotive as the train stood on a public crossing; (5) in that the engineer, upon discovering the headlights of the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding as it proceeded towards the crossing, failed to give any warning of the position of the train by bell, whistle or otherwise; (6) in that the engineer failed to warn the driver of the car in which the plaintiff was riding; (7) in failing to maintain automatic gates or electric bell or lights or other signal apparatus at a public crossing and in failing to maintain a watchman there; (8) in that the engineer failed to blow the whistle of the locomotive, or ring the bell, or wave a lighted lamp or lantern after he saw, or could have seen by the exercise of ordinary care, that the plaintiff and the driver of the automobile were in a place of danger; (9) 'Plaintiff alleges that there was nothing whatsoever to obstruct or interfere with the vision of the engineer in charge of said train as it was parked and partially blocked said crossing, and said automobile was traveling a frequently and much traveled public highway, and in full view of said engineer for at least fifty (50) yards, and he failed to keep a sharp lookout ahead and give the driver of said car and plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Kammerer
...92 Ga.App. 451, 88 S.E.2d 809, Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coxwell, 1955, 93 Ga.App. 159, 91 S.E. 2d 135 which overrules, in part, the Stains case; and Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Stains, 1953, 88 Ga.App. 6, 75 S.E.2d 833, companion case to Hathcock v. Georgia Northern Ry. Co., 1954, 90 G......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Coxwell
...v. Patterson, 77 Ga.App. 406, 49 S.E.2d 218; Evans v. Georgia Northern R. Co., 78 Ga.App. 709, 52 S.E.2d 28, and Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Stains, 88 Ga.App. 6, 75 S.E.2d 833. Analysis of these cases, beginning with Brinson v. Davis, supra, shows from the reasoning and citations therein t......
-
Southern Railway Company v. Jolley
...of the pertinent cases one of the determinative facts is the motorist's familiarity with the crossing. Georgia Northern Railway Co. v. Stains, 1953, 88 Ga.App. 6, 75 S.E.2d 833; Evans v. Georgia Northern Railroad Co., 1949, 78 Ga.App. 709, 52 S.E.2d On the facts found by the trial judge and......
-
Wood v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company
...Company v. Kammerer, supra, 239 F.2d at page 117; Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Sapp, supra; Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Stains, 1953, 88 Ga.App. 6, 10, 75 S.E. 2d 833; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Marshall, 1953, 89 Ga.App. 740, 748, 81 S.E.2d 228, 231. These cases are obviously......