Lee v. Central R. Co.

Decision Date26 November 1890
PartiesLEE v. CENTRAL R. CO.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

The presence of one clinker of unusual size on the margin of a railway track where switching is to be done, and on which a brakeman accidentally steps in descending from a moving engine, in the due course of his duties, will not render the company liable to answer for a personal injury which the brakeman thus sustains. For outdoor premises to be reasonably safe, it is not required that the surface shall be kept clear of every object which by chance might cause accidental injury.

Error from city court of Savannah; HARDEN, Judge.

Garrard & Meldrim, for plaintiff in error.

Lawton & Cunningham, by Edward S. Elliott, for defendant in error.

BLECKLEY C.J.

This being the first grant of a new trial, we should leave it to the general rule, were it not that, upon looking into the evidence, we are of opinion that a new trial would be wholly superfluous, for the plaintiff was his own witness, the defendant introduced no evidence, and on the case made by the plaintiff himself there can be no recovery. His injury was purely accidental. He was probably faultless himself, and he certainly shows no fault on the part of the company, unless the company is to be treated as an insurer against accidents to its employes, which, of course, is not its legal character or relation. He was a brakeman, and, in the course of his duty, stepped from the engine to the ground, the engine being in motion. In so doing, he struck his right foot against a large clinker of coal dross, five or six inches through one way, and three or four inches the other. It was nearly covered up with other dross from the engine, which he stepped into. That dross consisted of rakings from the furnace. These rakings do not generally consist of pure ashes, but sometimes have clinkers, generally so, unless they have been walked over long enough to be broken up. Frequently clinkers are so soft that walking over them will break them, and he had broken many. Generally a good many piles of this dross are along the track. He could not say how far this particular pile extended. He had seen piles 200 yards long. Dross that comes from the engines is taken from the side of the track and used for ballast between the rails. At that time, a construction train was engaged in such removal. This particular clinker was of unusual size, the average being...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Wallin v. Eastern Railway Company of Minnesota
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1901
    ... ... Patterson, Ry. Ac. Law, 11, et seq.; 1 Bailey, Pers. Inj., ... § 1014; Weisel v. Eastern Ry. Co., 79 Minn ... 245; Steffen v. Chicago, 46 Wis. 259; ... Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Mealer, 6 U.S ... App. 86; Lee v. Central, 86 Ga. 231; Louisville ... v. Southwick, 16 Ind.App. 486; Reid v ... Evansville, 10 Ind.App. 385; Denver v. McComas, ... 7 Colo.App. 121; Sellars v. Richmond, 94 N.C. 654 ...          Ludvig ... Arctander, for respondent ...           ... OPINION ... ...
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Puckett
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 3, 1915
    ... ... It is ... the duty of the master to furnish his servant with a safe ... place in which to work, and he is charged with the exercise ... of ordinary care in the selection and maintenance of such a ... place. Counsel cites the case of Lee v. Central ... Railroad, 86 Ga. 231, 12 S.E. 307, where it was held ... that the presence of one clinker of unusual size on the ... margin of a railway track, where switching is done, and upon ... which a brakeman accidentally steps in descending from a ... moving engine, will not render the company ... ...
  • Georgia, S. & F. Ry. Co. v. Williamson
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 8, 1951
    ...Ry. Company v. Anderson, 73 Ga.App. 343, 36 S.E.2d 435, hold to the contrary of the ruling now made. The case of Lee v. Central Ry. & Banking Co., 86 Ga. 231, 12 S.E. 307, is not authority for holding that the petition here, as amended, failed to allege a cause of action. That case was base......
  • Butler v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1930
    ...that the plaintiff's injury was due to "accident" in the sense that it occurred without fault of either party. Lee v. Central Railroad & Banking Co., 86 Ga. 231, 12 S. E. 307. It cannot be said that the answer did not include the defense of accident. It was permissible to prove such a defen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT