Hines v. Stevens

• Decision Date: 08 March 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 11693.)
• Citation: 106 S.E. 298,26 Ga.App. 379
• Parties: HINES, Director General. v. STEVENS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

26 Ga.App. 379

106 S.E. 298

HINES, Director General.

v.STEVENS.

(No. 11693.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

March 8, 1921.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from City Court of Hinesville; W. C. Hodges, Judge.

Action by O. L. Stevens against W. D. Hines, Director General of Railroads. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Boiling Whitfield, of Brunswick, and N. J. Norman, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.

Darsey & Mills, of Hinesville, for defendant in error.

LUKE, J. This case arises by reason of a suit to recover damages from the Federal Director General, operating the Seaboard Air Line Railway, for alleged damage to an automobile, the property of the plaintiff. The evidence was conclusive that at Dorchester, a station on the line of railroad, there was a crossing over its track; that the track was perfectly straight for several miles, and there were no obstructions to the view; that at a time when a regular passenger train was due to arrive and stop at Dorchester, the plaintiff, who owned a garage within a very few yards of the railroad, coupled behind his Ford car, with a chain about 15 feet long, another Ford car, and started his car in motion, towing the other car in the direction of the railroad, and just as the car in which he was riding got upon the railroad track, his car, because of the heavy load which he was towing, was stalled and stopped immediately upon the railroad track; that upon discovering the approaching train he jumped from his car to a place of safety, and two persons who were in the car that was being towed also jumped to a place of safety; that the engine struck the automobile on the track, and completely wrecked it. There is no conflict in the evidence that the plaintiff did not look to see if there was a train approaching before he went upon the track. The evidence is in conflict as to how far away the train was when he first discovered it. The plaintiff said that it was about the distance of two telegraph poles, or 150 or 200 yards away; witnesses in his behalf place it even closer. There is conflict as to whether the whistle of the engine was blown and the bell rung. The engineer operating the engine testified that he was within 25 yards of the automobile when it suddenly ran upon and stopped on the railroad track; that he had proper brakes for stopping the train, and they were in perfect working condition; that he immediately observed the car upon the track, and applied his brakes with...