Johnson v. Western

• Decision Date: 31 July 1875
• Parties: Tillman W. Johnson, plaintiff in error. v. Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

55 Ga. 134

Tillman W. Johnson, plaintiff in error. v. Western and Atlantic Railroad Company, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1875.)

Railroads. Torts. Before Judge McCutchen. Gordon Superior Court. February Term, 1875.

*Reported in the decision.

W. H. Dabney; W. R. Moore, for plaintiff in error.

Wofford & Milner; Fain & Milner, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant to recover damages for the alleged carelesss and negligent conduct of the defendant's employees, whereby he was greatly injured, by having his leg broken, etc., the plaintiff being also an employee of the defendant. On the trial of the case the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $2,000 00. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, that it was excessive, and for error in the refusal of the court to charge the jury as requested by defendant. The court granted the motion for a new trial, whereupon the plaintiff excepted.

It appears from the evidence in the record that the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a track hand upon its road; that he, with other employees of the defendant, at the time of the alleged injury, were engaged in the transportation of themselves and tools to their place of work, on a hand-car. When going along to their place of work, on defendant's road, the boss of the squad directed them to stop and take on the car three iron rails, and five cross-ties, which was done, placing two of the rails on the west side of the car, and one on the east side thereof; the cross-ties were put across the rails, the car then went forward about one-fourth of a mile, and took on another iron rail, which was placed on the east side of the car, near the edge, which was worn off and beveled. The parties then started off down the road, went about half a mile, when they reached Reeves' crossing; the boss blew his whistle for the car to stop, and said, let us get this car off the track, the train will soon be passing. Whilst unloading the car to get it off the track, the iron rail which hadbeen placed on the east side of the car rolled off and broke *the plaintiff\'s leg. The plaintiff alleged, in his declaration, as one ground of the defendant\'s negligence, that it was using an old, frail hand-car, that was nearly worn out, so much so that the edges of the platform were worn off to a steep bevel, and...