Lowry v. Atlanta Joint Terminals

• Decision Date: 12 September 1916
• Docket Number: 634.
• Citation: 89 S.E. 832,145 Ga. 782
• Parties: LOWRY v. ATLANTA JOINT TERMINALS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

89 S.E. 832

145 Ga. 782

LOWRY v. ATLANTA JOINT TERMINALS.

No. 634.

Supreme Court of Georgia

September 12, 1916

Syllabus by the Court.

The substance of the petition is this: The plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a "railroad detective or inspector," in the Georgia Railroad roundhouse, and to watch the yards between the roundhouse and the office. The understanding between him and defendant at the time he went into "this detective business" was that he should have an assistant with him when in the performance of his duties he went into the yards at night. For awhile after he first began work an employé of defendant accompanied him at night, but defendant soon removed him to some other place without the knowledge or consent of plaintiff and in violation of the understanding. There were no lights between the tracks upon which the cars stood or about the cars except a few switch lights. Defendant, however, upon complaint by plaintiff, had stated that arrangements would be made for lights to be put up so that plaintiff could see and protect himself from thieves and burglars; but no such lights were furnished, and plaintiff was obliged to guard and inspect the cars at night in the dark and alone. Defendant knew this was dangerous work for plaintiff under the circumstances, but failed to explain the danger to him. On December 15, 1913, plaintiff commenced his usual work at 6 o'clock p. m. about halfway between the roundhouse and the office; and while walking between the tracks on which cars were standing, in order to inspect them and to see that nothing was wrong, he discovered two men trying to open a car, and when he approached them and inquired "what they were doing breaking open the car," one of them struck him on the head and side of the face with something heavy seriously injuring him, as the petition sets forth; and his diminished capacity by reason of his injuries is alleged. Defendant is charged with being negligent in the following particulars: (a) "In not informing [plaintiff] of the dangerous position he would be in in doing the work above mentioned;" (b) "in removing from [[[plaintiff] the assistant that was to work in the same yards with him, so as to be some protection to each other;" (c) "in not providing proper lights so as to see when he was approaching danger, and so to save himself from attack, damage, and injury." A general demurrer to the petition was sustained, and the case dismisse...