Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Hicks

• Decision Date: 14 January 1895
• Citation: 22 S.E. 613,95 Ga. 301
• Parties: GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. HICKS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

22 S.E. 613

95 Ga. 301

GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. HICKS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 14, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The plaintiff, an employé of a railroad company, having brought suit against his employer for damages sustained by reason of injuries inflicted in consequence of the negligence of a fellow servant in and about a common employment, if himself free from fault, is entitled to recover notwithstanding their engagement in a business not immediately connected with running and operating the company's trains.

2. In such a case, negligence of the plaintiff, however slight which contributes in an appreciable degree to the cause of the injury, defeats a recovery. No presumption of negligence against the company arises until he shows affirmatively that he was himself without fault. It was therefore error to give in charge to the jury section 3033 of the Code.

3. When, in such a case, the plaintiff shows that the injury was inflicted through the negligence of a fellow servant engaged in and about the common employment, and without fault upon the part of the former, the burden is cast upon the company of showing only that its servants exercised ordinary and reasonable care; and an instruction to the jury which imposes upon the defendant the superadded duty of showing how the casualty occurred is erroneous.

4. The rule of law which admits as evidence the opinions of experts is limited in its application to those cases only where the question at issue is one of opinion, involving some particular matter connected with a special art, trade, or science, and to the opinions of those persons who from accurate knowledge of the particular art or trade, or thorough understanding of the particular science, are supposed to be able to speak with precision concerning the same. Therefore, where the question at issue is one of fact involving none of the mysteries of a particular craft, but only such matters connected therewith as are easily within the comprehension of reasonably intelligent men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of life, opinions of experts thereon are not admissible, though the fact under investigation may be in some way connected with such particular trade or calling.

Error from city court of Richmond; W. F. Eve, Judge.

Action by Thomas N. Hicks against the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and a new trial denied. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Jos. B. & Bryan Cumming, for plaintiff in error.

J. S. & W. T. Davidson, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON J.

The facts upon which the questions in this case arise are so fully and accurately stated in the official report that we do not deem it necessary to restate them here.

1. The principle declared in the first headnote has been so frequently and so strongly stated by this court heretofore that it is unnecessary to attempt a further elaboration of the reasons which justify its recognition. It might be well for the profession to recognize that with reference to some matters, at least, they are so well established as, upon the doctrine of stare decisis, to be beyond...