Macon And Western R.R. Co. v. Johnson
| Citation | 38 Ga. 409 |
| Parties | MACON AND WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, plaintiff in error. v. MARGARET A. JOHNSON, defendant in error. The same parties vice versa. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1868 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.]
[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.]
Case. Motion for new trial. Decided by Judge Cole. Bibb Superior Court. November Term, 1867.
Arthur W. Johnson was a passenger upon the night passenger train from Macon to Atlanta, over the railroad of said company. That train was followed by a freight train. *Some portion of its engine having broken, the passenger train was stopped. Whilst it was stopped, Johnson stood upon the platform of one of its cars, and there remained till the freight train, running into the passenger train, killed him. Thereupon, his wife sued the company for damages.
The main question being, who was in fault, the parties read the evidence of very many persons. The plaintiff undertook to show that these trains were out of schedule time; that the officers of the company had violated some of its rules, and that the signalman, sent back to give notice to the freight train, had gone back too short a distance, etc. On the other hand, the company undertook to show that Johnson was drinking; did show that he stood upon the rear platform of the rear car of the passenger train, etc. One of the witnesses said: "It is my opinion Johnson could not have been in his seat at the moment of collision, but was at the door or on the platform." The plaintiff's attorneys objected to this answer as evidence, but the Court received it. It was shown that on the doors of each passenger car was a plate, with raised letters, as follows: "Passengers must not stand on the platform." George W. Adams, who had long been conversant with other railroads, but who was never employed on the Macon and Western railroad, was allowed, over the defendant's objection, to testify that on railroads with which he had beenconnected, the object of such notices on the doors of the passenger cars, was only to keep passengers off the platforms when the train was in motion. He, also testified that a collision could not occur where both trains are off schedule time, without fault on the part of the railroad company. This, too, came in over the defendant\'s objections. None of the passengers who were inside the cars were damaged seriously, if at all, and quite a number of the witnesses testified that they believed that had Johnson been inside, he had not been injured. To these opinions, the plaintiff objected, but her objections were overruled. But when the defendant proposed to read, from the answers of one of its witnesses, that "it was the general opinion of passengers that all was done that could be done to prevent the *accident, and that there was a card issued and signed by many of the passengers, exonerating the agents of the company from all blame, " the Court rejected that answer.
The card alluded to was in the following words:
It was signed by seventeen of the male passengers. It had been published in the Macon Telegraph, and the original had been lost. It was made and signed on the spot, just after the catastrophe, but how long after, did not appear. (The company's attorneys, in the bill of exceptions, say it was fifteen or twenty minutes after the catastrophe.) Under these circumstances, they offered it in evidence, but the Court refused to allow it to be read to the jury.
We pass to the question of the amount of damages.
The plaintiff's attorneys asked a witness the following questions: "In your answer to a former set of interrogatories propounded to you by plaintiff, you stated that you thought the services of Arthur W. Johnson were worth $1,500 00 or $2,000 00 per annum, did you mean to say that his services were worth that sum, exclusive of the support of his family?" The question was objected to as leading. The Court held it was not leading, and the witness answered that he meant he could make that much "clear of the support of his family."
Johnson was shown to have been between thirty and thirty-four years old when killed; most of the witnesses said about thirty-four. He had been a merchant, etc., and the witnesses who testified as to his income, put it from $1,500 00 to $2,500 00 per annum.
*The returns of his property for taxation, made by himself, for a series of years, were as follows:
-----------------------------------------------------
|For|1854 |$ 865 00 |For|1861|$14,715 00 |
|---|-----|----------|---|----|---------------------|
|" |1855 |530 00 |" |1862|13, 590 00 |
|---|-----|----------|---|----|---------------------|
|" |1856 |1, 300 00 |" |1863|18.612 00 |
|---|-----|----------|---|----|---------------------|
|" |1857 |2, 900 00 |" |1864|24, 760 00 |
|---|-----|----------|---|----|---------------------|
|" |1858 |3, 950 00 |" |1865|No Return. |
|---|-----|----------|---|----|---------------------|
|" |1859.|10, 987 00|" |1866|his estate, 4, 450 00|
|---|-----|----------|---|----|---------------------|
|" |1860.|13, 044 00|" | | |
-----------------------------------------------------
The inventory of the real and personal estate, made by his administrators, footed up $4,801 50. He acquired something by his marriages. Two witnesses estimated this as high as $3,000 00, another said $2,000 00, by his first marriage, and he did not know how much by his second, which occurred in 186-. He was shown to have been industrious, of good habits generally, etc.
To arrive at the quantum of damages from these data, John M. Boardman and Charles T. McCay were examined as experts. Boardman testified that he had been, since 1854, a life insurance agent; had examined "Bartlett's Commercial Tables, " and found them correct; that it contained a table of annuities, which was correct, and recognized as authority; that they were founded on the Carlisle Tables, which were gotten up at Carlisle, England, and generally received as authority by insurance men; that from these tables, counting interest at seven per cent., and allowing nothing for parts of the annual income being added to the capital, he calculated the value of the life of a healthy man, thirty-four years old, upon an annual income of $2,000 00, to be $22,749 57; of $700 00 income, to be $7,962 35; of $50 00 income, to be $568 73.
Charles F. McCay's testimony was as follows: The first question was to show his experience, etc., in such calculations, and the response to it, was as follows: "I was professor of mathematics in the University of Georgia, and in the State College of South Carolina for many years, and since 1849, have been actuary or mathematician to The Southern Mutual *Life Insurance Company. While I was at Athens and Columbia, I had the libraries enriched with all the standard works on the statistics of human mortality, and devoted much attention to the subject. I prepared, at various times, articles on these subjects, for Hunt\'s Merchant\'s Magazine, which have received commendation from the best judges in the United States. Last year, I was invited by the superintendent of the Insurance Department of the State of New York, to give him my opinion of the proper method for valuing the liabilities of their Life Insurance Companies, for my answers to which, I have received his thanks, and I subjoin the approval of the same from Mr. Bradley, actuary, of the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, which is one of the largest in the Union. I regard myself, therefore, as qualified by my education and studies, to give reliableanswers to any question connected with life contingencies, especially in the South, where the rate of mortality is probably greater than in the North, as is shown by the experience of the Southern Mutual Life Insurance Company, to which I have devoted careful attention:
*The second interrogatory was: "A person is killed by the running of railroad cars on the road, who is thirty-four years old, and who has a family that he supports; his services are worth, annually, to his family, say from $1,500 00 to $3,000 00; that is, his services produce, annually, the average of these sums. Now, what sum in gross, would, in money, be equivalent to those depending on such person for the loss of his life?
Answer.—"The answer to this question depends, I think, on several other things besides the value of an annuity on the life of the deceased; for 1st, if the deceased had lived, his earnings would be partly consumed in his own support; and 2d, the earnings would not probably be continued the same until the end of life—as when old age had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. NationsBank, N.A. (South)
...in proximately causing his or her injury, no matter the degree, acted as an absolute bar to plaintiff's recovery. See Macon & Western R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409, 431-433(1, 2) (1868); Central R. & Banking Co. v. Dixon, 42 Ga. 327, 330-331 (1871); see also Southland Butane Gas Co. v. Blac......
-
Underwood v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co.
...some negligence, in failing to blow the whistle as usual before moving, on the part of the railroad. The court cited Macon & Western R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409, 433, and § 2921 [now § 105-603] of the Code, and in its opinion stated: 'If he [the plaintiff] be negligent, but the negligence......
-
Kreiss v. Allatoona Landing, Inc., 40055
...many of the States, has abolished the common law rule that contributory negligence by a plaintiff prevents a recovery. Macon & Western Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409; City of Ocilla v. Luke, 28 Ga.App. 234, 110 S.E. 757. However, it could be argued that this principle still rules from ......
-
St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Long
...Same v. Butler, 57 Pa. 335; Same v. Goodman, 62 Pa. 329; Johnston v. Cleveland & T. R. Co., 7 Ohio St. 336, 70 Am. Dec. 75; M. & W. R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409; Rose v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 39 Iowa 246; Orgall v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 46 Neb. 4, 64 N.W. 450; Louisville & N. R. Co.......