Georgia R.R. & Banking Co. v. Bohler

• Decision Date: 16 March 1896
• Citation: 26 S.E. 739,98 Ga. 184
• Parties: GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. BOHLER. SAME v. HILL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

26 S.E. 739

98 Ga. 184

GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. BOHLER.

SAME v. HILL.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 16, 1896

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The evidence warranted the charge embodying the law contained in section 3018 of the Code. No objection to the evidence alleged to have been illegally admitted was stated, and therefore the special grounds of the motion for a new trial are without merit.

2. A railroad company, in the construction and maintenance of its culverts and embankments, is not bound to guard against every possible contingency which may result in injury to the property of others; but it is bound to so construct, keep and maintain its culverts and embankments, and consequent inundation of lands below. In guarding against such injuries it is incumbent upon the company to take into consideration the climate, the clearings upon the stream, and all of those varying conditions peculiar to the locality, and which might tend to increase the flow of the stream which the culvert was designed to accommodate.

3. The question as to whether the rainstorm which produced the injury in these cases was such an extraordinary flood as tom relieve the railroad company was properly submitted to the jury; and the evidence upon this point, though conflicting being sufficient to authorize a finding in favor of the plaintiffs, there was no error in denying a new trial.

Error from superior court, Columbia county; E. H. Callaway, Judge.

Separate actions by F. N.E. Bohler and C. M. Hill against the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company for negligence in the construction of the road. From judgments for the respective plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

& pg739;Jos. B. & Bryan Cumming and M. P. Reese, for plaintiff in error.

John T. West, for defendants in error.

ATKINSON J.

F. N.E Bohler sued the railroad company, alleging: She owns a tract of land of 130 acres, located on the north side of defendant's track in Columbia county, and running to within 350 yards of the track. There are 10 acres of bottom land on the track, lying on each side of a branch which runs through the farm and crosses the roadbed of defendant at or near what is known as the "Fisk Property." During the year 1893, had a fine crop of corn on the land. A high embankment had been erected by defendant where its roadbed crosses the branch, and the water of the branch passes under the rails and embankment of defendant through the culvert made by defendant for that purpose. This culvert used by defendant for the passage of water of the stream prior to September 13, 1893, was not large enough to carry off the water of the stream after a heavy rainfall, so that in such case the water would pond up on the upper side of the embankment in large quantities after every heavy rain, often so as to rise far up along the side of the embankment, thus exposing it to the danger of washing away. Defendant was guilty of negligence in not providing a sufficient culvert, and knew, or ought to have known, that its culvert was not sufficient, and its attention had been called to the fact. On September 13, 1893, there was at this point a heavy, though not unusual, rainfall. Because of the insufficiency of the culvert to carry off the water, and that the embankment acted as a dam, a large body of water was collected above said dam, in such quantities that it broke through the embankment, and flowed in large volume and with great force down the stream, overflowing petitioner's bottom land, ruining the crops thereon, and filling up the bed of the stream with mud and sand, to petitioner's damage an amount set forth, aggregating some $400. There was a verdict for plaintiff for $191.75, and, defendant's motion for a new trial being overruled, it excepted. The motion was upon the general grounds that the verdict was...