Georgia Ry. & Electric Co. v. Reeves
| Decision Date | 03 August 1905 |
| Citation | 51 S.E. 610,123 Ga. 697 |
| Parties | GEORGIA RY. & ELECTRIC CO. v. REEVES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where an action was based on the allegation that a passenger on a car of an electric railway, at the direction of the conductor, was required to change cars, and while passing from one car to another she was injured by the negligent conduct of the defendant's agents and servants in connection with such change, an amendment which alleged an additional act of negligence forming part of the same transaction did not set up a new and distinct cause of action.
Such an amendment, which alleged that "said jerk of said car was caused by the defendant's servants and agents in charge of said car," was not subject to objection on the ground that it did not connect the alleged negligence with the defendant.
If a car is at rest temporarily, and a passenger is lawfully leaving it, or passing from it to another car, under the direction of the conductor, and while this is in progress a sudden and violent jerk or movement of the car is caused by the company's agents, resulting in injury to the passenger, it is not necessary to allege in detail by what particular means they caused the jerk to occur.
While an independent act of negligence not connected with contributing to, or causing the injury to a passenger is immaterial, and an amendment alleging such an act is demurrable, yet where the amendment, taken in connection with the declaration, sufficiently shows that the act alleged in it formed a part of the conduct of the defendant's agents from which the injury was alleged to have resulted, there was no error in overruling a demurrer thereto.
Where the evidence for the plaintiff in an action for damages tended to show that the injury occurred on the same line of railroad, but at a point some 350 or 400 yards distant from the place where it was alleged in the declaration to have happened, an amendment for the purpose of correcting the allegation so as to make it conform to the evidence, but still referring to the same transaction, and not to a different occurrence, did not add a new and distinct cause of action, and was not objectionable on that ground.
If any objection could properly have been made to the allowance of such an amendment, it furnishes no cause for a reversal where, upon further evidence being introduced, which tended to show that the injury in fact occurred at the point originally alleged, the amendment was withdrawn.
If a motion for a nonsuit should have been granted at the time when it was refused, yet, if the evidence afterwards introduced supplied the deficiency, no reversal will result from such refusal.
Where the presiding judge, at one part of the charge on the subject of the presumption arising from proof of injury from the running of the cars of a railroad company, or the acts of persons in its employment, did not limit such presumption to the specific acts of negligence alleged, but in his general charge did clearly and specifically confine the jury to the consideration of such specifications of negligence, this furnishes no ground for a new trial.
If a car containing passengers is stopped while in transit, and the passengers are directed by the conductor to change to another car, which is on a track parallel to the first, and if, while they are so doing, the employés of the company put out the lights of the first car, and cause it to jerk suddenly, resulting in injury to a passenger who is in the act of making the change, this would be an injury resulting from the running of the cars of the company, within the meaning of the statute, and would also be a damage done by a person in the employment and service of the company, so as to raise the statutory presumption of negligence against it.
None of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial in this case require a reversal.
Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action by Malinda Reeves against the Georgia Railway & Electric Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
If a motion for dismissal or nonsuit should have been granted when requested, yet, if evidence afterwards introduced supplied the deficiency, it is not cause for reversal.
Mrs Malinda Reeves brought suit against the Georgia Railway & Electric Company to recover damages for a personal injury alleging, in brief, as follows: She was a passenger on one of defendant's cars on November 20, 1902, between the hours of 5 and 6 p. m. When the car reached a certain point on the line, it stopped, and the conductor directed the passengers to transfer from it to another car of the defendant, which stood on a parallel track, and which was to carry the passengers to the end of the journey. The conductor and motorman directed the passengers to step from the car on which they had been riding to the other car. They negligently failed to exercise any care or diligence in assisting passengers, particularly female passengers, like the plaintiff, who was an elderly lady, from one car to the other, and negligently failed to provide any safe means of getting from one car to the other. They negligently failed to stop the car at any proper place where there was a platform or a raised place for passengers to alight, and negligently directed the passengers to step from one car to the other. A number of passengers were in front of the plaintiff and a number behind, and they were crowding and pressing in the cars from one to the other. Passengers made a step from one car to the other. The conductor and motorman stood by, seeing and directing and permitting this to be done, and permitting the passengers to crowd behind the plaintiff with force and speed. The car on which the plaintiff had been riding had been lighted by electricity, and just as the plaintiff was in the act of undertaking to step from one car to the other the conductor negligently pulled down the trolley pole, and by this method, and by other means unknown to the plaintiff, caused the car to become suddenly darkened, and no sufficient light was thrown out between the cars to enable persons to safely make the step from one car to the other, or to safely judge of the distance; and because the plaintiff was unable to see or discern the landing place or step on the car, and because the passengers behind were crowding and pressing her, with the knowledge of the conductor and motorman, and because no safe landing or passageway from one car to the other had been provided, and because the plaintiff was in no way assisted or guarded or protected, and failed to get a firm footing upon the step of the car in passing from one car to the other, she fell to the ground, and was permanently injured. The nature of the injury was specifically alleged. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff was a passenger on its car; that the car was stopped, and the conductor directed passengers to transfer from it to another car which stood on a parallel track, for the purpose of carrying the passengers into the city of Atlanta. The other substantial allegations were denied. The plaintiff amended her declaration by alleging that when she was in the act of stepping from one car to the other there was a sudden jerk or movement of the car from which she was stepping; that such jerk or movement of the car was negligence on the part of the defendant, and that it was caused by the defendant's servants and agents in charge of the car. This amendment was allowed over objection, and exceptions pendente lite were filed. While the plaintiff was on the stand, she testified that the injury occurred, not at Hurt street, as alleged in the declaration, but at a point known as "Moreland's Station," which other evidence indicated was about 350 or 400 yards distant from Hurt street. Thereupon an amendment was offered and allowed over objection, alleging that the injury really occurred at Moreland's Station. The plaintiff's evidence was not very clear as to the location, as she stated that she was not familiar with the line. When the defendant's evidence was introduced, it showed positively that the occurrence really took place at Hurt street. The plaintiff then withdrew the amendment previously made, changing the allegation as to the place of the occurrence, and returned to the original allegation on that subject. This also was objected to. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as to what transpired at the time and place of the alleged injury was, in brief, as follows: The plaintiff was returning to Atlanta from Decatur, six miles distant, on one of the defendant's cars, operated by electricity, between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening. When the car arrived at a place about the outskirts of the city of Atlanta, it stopped alongside of...
To continue reading
Request your trial