Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Ledford
| Decision Date | 15 December 1914 |
| Docket Number | 71. |
| Citation | 83 S.E. 792,142 Ga. 770 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. LEDFORD. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.
The grounds of special demurrer which were sustained by the court were either without merit or were sufficiently met by the amendments to the petition.
The court did not err in charging the jury that "there is no law that impeaches a witness because he is an agent or employé of a railroad, or connected with a railroad corporation; it is a question you may consider as regarding his interest, in judging his credibility."
The court erred in instructing the jury that "If different witnesses, in testifying about a matter, agree upon the material facts testified to by them, slight discrepancies as to collateral attendant facts afford no sufficient legal ground to discredit their testimony." This charge was in violation of the fixed and unvarying rule of law of this state that the amount of credit to be given witnesses and their testimony, and what will affect their credibility, is exclusively for determination by the jury.
In a suit to recover damages for personal injuries causing physical pain, suffering, and illness, as well as mental pain and suffering, it is inapt to charge the jury:
Another ground of the motion for a new trial is that the court erred in failing to charge the jury that if the plaintiff by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence she could not recover. Under the evidence in this case the court should have given this principle of law in charge to the jury, and the failure to do so is ground for the grant of a new trial.
The court's charge relative to impeachment of witnesses by proof of general bad character was unauthorized by the evidence and should not have been given.
Error from Superior Court, Gilmer County; H. L. Patterson, Judge.
Action by Mrs. Frank Ledford against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Mrs Frank Ledford brought suit against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received in consequence of certain acts of negligence set forth in the petition. She alleged in substance that the defendant company was a carrier of passengers, and that on the night of November 18, 1911, she went to the station at the town of Ellijay, on the line of the defendant's railway, for the purpose of becoming a passenger upon one of its passenger trains going north and scheduled to arrive at about 7:30 p. m. She purchased a ticket, and while waiting for the train in the waiting room of the depot she suddenly became sick and wanted water. There was no water in the depot to which she had access, and she inquired of the agent in charge of the depot as to where she could obtain water, and he directed her to a pump outside of the depot. She attempted to go to the pump as directed by the agent. She went out of the waiting room on the platform of the depot, which was not lighted in any way, nor protected and guarded by any bannisters, either around the same or along the steps leading to the platform; and while trying to find her way to the pump she fell from the platform to the ground, a distance of several feet, and in consequence of the fall was greatly bruised, her left eye was injured, her wrist and two of her fingers were broken, and she received several other specified injuries. In an amendment to the petition it was alleged that, in attempting to go from the platform to the pump along the passageway provided for passengers, her foot struck some obstruction, either a raised plank or a nail in the floor, which defendant had negligently permitted to remain in that condition; that the defendant had bannisters along the edge of the platform, but they did not continue the entire...
To continue reading
Request your trial