Georgia Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 10 February 1915
• Docket Number: 163.
• Citation: 84 S.E. 434,143 Ga. 93
• Parties: GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO. v. CARROLL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

84 S.E. 434

143 Ga. 93

GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO. v. CARROLL.

No. 163.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 10, 1915

Syllabus by the Court.

It is the duty of the judge to make the record speak the truth. If by inadvertence the court approves his charge to the jury and afterwards discovers a palpable clerical mistake made in its transcription, he may and should correct such mistake.

After the plaintiff in a suit against an electric railway company has shown that he was injured by the running of one of the defendant's cars, a presumption arises that the defendant was negligent as charged in the plaintiff's petition. Gainesville & Dahlonega Electric Ry. Co. v. Austin, 127 Ga. 120, 56 S.E. 254; Cordray v. Savannah, etc Ry., 117 Ga. 464, 43 S.E. 755. In such a case it is not error requiring a new trial for the court to state, in his instructions to the jury, the plaintiff's contentions respecting the defendant's negligence as alleged in the petition, though as to one of the specific acts thus alleged the defendant introduced evidence to disprove the same, and the plaintiff did not offer counter evidence.

The instructions relative to the duty imposed by law to exercise ordinary care to avoid the consequences of another's negligence was in accord with the principle enunciated in W. & A. R. R. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 Ga. 708, 39 S.E 306, 54 L.R.A. 802, and followed in subsequent cases.

Civ Code 1910, § 2687, providing that "all engine drivers and conductors must cause the trains which they * * * drive and conduct to come to a full stop within fifty feet of the place of crossing," where the tracks of separate and independent railroads cross each other, does not apply to an intersection by a street railroad track of a commercial railroad track. Georgia Ry. & Electric Co. v Joiner, 120 Ga. 905, 48 S.E. 336.

The damages recoverable for permanent injuries to the person should compensate the injured one for the loss of money which he would probably earn had not the injuries occurred. R. & D. R. R. Co. v. Allison, 86 Ga. 145, 12 S.E. 352, 11 L.R.A. 43. The plaintiff alleged that his injuries were permanent, and testimony was received tending to show that a part of his foot was amputated, and that since his injury he had been promoted by his employer to a superior and more remunerative position, which he accepted, but was forced to relinquish within a few days because of his injuries. There was no error in charging:...