Hardin v. Southern Ry. Co, (No. 17263.)
| Decision Date | 14 February 1927 |
| Docket Number | (No. 17263.) |
| Citation | 136 S.E. 802,36 Ga.App. 427 |
| Parties | HARDIN. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1927.
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
Error from City Court of Hall County; W. B. Sloan, Judge.
Action by W. R. Hardin against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Hewlett & Dennis, of Atlanta, and B. P. Gaillard, Jr., of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
O. J. Lilly and A. C. Wheeler, both of Gainesville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
STEPHENS, J. [1] 1. It is the duty of a railroad company to exercise due care in the maintenance of a bridge over its tracks along a public highway in a condition safe for travelers passing over the bridge in the exercise of due care. *
2. What constitutes such due care upon the part of the railroad company will be determined with reference to any particular condition in the roadway at the approach to the bridge, as a sharp curve in the road at the approach to the bridge, which increases the hazard in the use of the bridge by travelers in vehicles as they turn the sharp curve from the road onto the bridge.
3. The maintenance by the railroad company of a guard rail upon the bridge in a condition so frail and weak that a vehicle, which has skidded upon sand and loose dirt upon the bridge after turning the sharp curve in the road and coming upon the bridge, breaks through the guard rail and falls off the bridge, may be negligence.
4. In a suit against the railroad company, where it is alleged that the plaintiff, when traveling in the exercise of due care in an automobile along the public road and coming around the sharp curve in the road, and upon the bridge across the railroadtracks of the defendant, was injured by reason of the automobile skidding upon sand and loose dirt upon the bridge and breaking through the guard rail on the bridge, which the defendant had negligently maintained in a frail and insecure condition, and falling off the bridge, the petition sets out a cause of action.
5. The trial court erred in sustaining the defendant's demurrers to the plaintiff's petition.
Judgment reversed.
JENKINS, P. J., disqualified.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. Southern Ry. Co., 5583.
...driven over the bridge with ordinary care. Comstock v. Great Northern Railway Co., 157 Minn. 345, 196 N.W. 177; Hardin v. Southern Railway Co., 36 Ga. App. 427, 136 S.E. 802; Bond v. Billerica, 235 Mass. 119, 126 N.E. 281; Kelsea v. Stratford, 80 N.H. 148, 118 A. 9; Medema v. Hines 8 Cir., ......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Magagna
...being driven over the bridge with ordinary care. Comstock Great Northern Railway Co., 157 Minn. 345, 196 N.W. 177; Hardin Southern Railway Co., 36 Ga.App. 427, 136 S.E. 802; Bond Billerica, 235 Mass. 119, 126 N.E. 281; Kelsea Stratford, 80 N.H. 148, 118 Atl. 9; Medema Hines (C.C.A.) 273 Fed......
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Magagna.*
...driven over the bridge with ordinary care. Cornstock v. Great Northern Railway Co., 157 Minn. 315, 196 N. W. 177; Hardin v. Southern Railway Co., 36 Ga. App. 427, 136 S. E. 802; Bond v. Billerica, 235 Mass. 119, 126 N. E. 281; Kelsea v. Stratford, 80 N. H. 148, 118 A. 9; Medema v. Hines (C.......
-
Whalen v. Ruiz
...driven over the bridge with ordinary care. Comstock v. Great Northern Railway Co., 157 Minn. 345, 196 N.W. 177; Hardin v. Southern Railway Co., 36 Ga.App. 427, 136 S.E. 802; Bond v. Billerica, 235 Mass. 119, 126 N.E. 281; Kelsea v. Stratford, 80 N.H. 148, 118 A. 9; Medema v. Hines [8 Cir.],......