Jarrett v. Atlanta & West Point B. Co

• Decision Date: 15 April 1889
• Citation: 83 Ga. 347,9 S.E. 681
• Parties: Jarrett v. Atlanta & West Point B. Co. et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

9 S.E. 681

(83 Ga. 347)

Jarrett

v.Atlanta & West Point B. Co. et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 15, 1889.

Accident to Passenger on Train.

1. A declaration in a suit for damages for injuries on defendant railroad alleged that plain tiff, an employe of another road, was riding on defendant's train in going to his work, according to a permitted custom. The train was running, unlawfully, at 25 miles an hour at the crossing where he wished to get off; and, in jumping, plaintiff was injured by defendant's alleged negligence. Held, that a general demurrer to the declaration, as stating no cause of action, was properly sustained.

2. An amendment to the declaration, alleging that plaintiff was an experienced train-hand; that he supposed the train would stop; that he was a poor man; and, not knowing how he would get back, if carried further, was excited, and jumped, —was properly refused, as it would not have aided plaintiff, if allowed.

8. Where a general demurrer to the declaration is filed, the judge can pass on its sufficiency and dismiss the suit, though a question of negligence is involved.

Error from city court of Atlanta, Van Epps, Judge.

E. W. Mai-tin and F. A. Quillian, for plaintiff in error. Clahoan, King & Spald-ing, for defendants in error.

Simmons, J. By his original declaration the plaintiff alleged as follows: He was an employe of the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, whose line terminated in Atlanta. He boarded one of the passenger trains of the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company at the passenger depot, the starting-point, for the purpose of going to the freight depot of the Central Railroad, at the Mitchell-Street crossing. He did so with the consent of the Atlanta & West Point Com-pany, it being the custom of that and the other railroad companies terminating in Atlanta to permit the employes of each other to ride from the passenger depot on outgoing trains to their freight depots or workshops; and, according to this custom, he was on the train. On arriving at his destination, by reason of the unlawful running of the train at the rate of 25 or more miles per hour, he was, in the act of getting off, thrown violently against the ground, and against a pile of iron which the Central Railroad Company had carelessly placed at the crossing. This was a public crossing, and running of the train at that rate was a direct violation of the city ordinance and the state law. By reason of the above, which was negligence on the part of both defendants, he has been dreadfully and permanently injured; and he sets forth the extent of his damages. He received the injuries by no fault of his own, but by the negligence of the defendants, as above set forth. The defendants demurred generally to the declaration, and moved to dismiss it because there was no cause of action set forth. The motion was sustained. The plaintiff offered to amend by alleging as follows: Before he got on the train he spoke to the fireman, and in the presence of the engineer, told him he was going to the point mentioned, and asked him if the train stopped there, as was the custom; and he was told by these agents that it did and would do so that day. Before he left the train two other men...