Macon Ry. & Light Co v. Vining

• Decision Date: 12 July 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 232,120 Ga. 511
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: MACON RY. & LIGHT CO. v. VINING.

48 S.E. 232

120 Ga. 511

MACON RY. & LIGHT CO.

v.VINING.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 12, 1904.

STREET —RAILROADS—— INJURY TO PASSENGER —NEGLIGENCE —PLEADING —PHYSICAL —EXAM —INATION —MEASURE OF DAMAGE —INSTRUC —TIONS

1. The petition set forth a cause of action, and the demurrers thereto were properly overruled.

2. The application by the defendant to suspend the trial for the purpose of having the plaintiff examined by a physician was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and the record does not disclose such an abuse of this discretion as would authorize the Supreme Court to interfere.

3. The charge in reference to the measure of damages was erroneous, and the error was of such a character as to require a reversal of the judgment.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Macon; Robt. Hodges, Judge.

Action by Mrs. H. J. Vining against the Macon Railway & Light Company. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

The plaintiff's petition alleged: Petitioner became a passenger on one of the defendant's electric cars, paid her fare, and notified the conductor to put her off at a place called "Brooklyn Bridge." The conductor stopped the car near the point which had been designated, but not exactly opposite the bridge, as he bad been directed by petitioner to stop. It was dark, and petitioner was old and feeble, and could not see well, all of which was apparent to the conductor; but, notwithstanding this, the conductor directed petitioner to get off at the point where the car had been stopped, and then and there helped her off, placing her standing on the ground at a point just opposite the step of the car, which then moved away. Petitioner thought she had been put off opposite the bridge, at the place where she had requested to be put off, which was a safe point for her to alight; whereas the conductor put her off several feet away from the bridge, and at a very narrow point or piece of ground between the street car track and a deep gully which ran near by. The space between the track and the gully was only a foot or two wide, and was a very dangerous and unsafe place; and petitioner, not beingable to see, and thinking the conductor had put her off at the place she had requested to be put off, took a step, and fell directly into the gully, receiving a fall which inflicted upon her severe and painful injuries. The injuries received are set forth with particularity, and the damages are laid at $5,000 for pain and suffering and for time lost from a business which the plaintiff was engaged in prior to the injury. The petition was demurred to upon the grounds that it set forth no cause of action; that the allegations as to the carelessness of the conductor do not show any breach of duty to the plaintiff, nor any violation of any rule of diligence imposed by law upon defendant; that there was no duty imposed upon defendant to furnish petitioner with a safe place to alight, nor to stop its car long enough to see that petitioner was placed upon a safe basis before starting the car, nor to advise her that she was at a different place from that designated by her, nor that the conductor had put her off at a dangerous place. The demurrer was overruled, and exception was duly taken thereto by the defendant. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,750. The defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and it excepts also to this judgment. Among other things, the motion assigns error upon the charge of the judge on the subject of the measure of damages. The entire charge upon this subject was as follows: "I charge you that she would be entitled to recover, if she is entitled to recover at all, compensation for her lost time in such measure as the evidence discloses would be proper and adequate compensation for such lost time; and she would be entitled to recover, if entitled to recover at all, damages by way of compensation for the alleged injury and damage done by reason of the pain and suffering and the mutilation of her person, if any such mutilation, disfigurement, or impairment is shown by the evidence; and, if any such pain and suffering is shown by the evidence, she is entitled to recover for pain and suffering, past, present, and future, as shown by the evidence, disfigurement and impairment of her person if shown by the evidence, and her actual compensation for lost time as shown by the evidence. And I charge you in this character of cases there is no fixed standard — no mathematical standard — by which the court can aid you in coming to a conclusion as to the amount of damage which the plaintiff in this case would be entitled to, in the event you conclude that she is entitled to damages or compensation. The only measure of damage fixed by law is the enlightened conscience of impartial jurors. Damages are given as compensation for injury and harm done; and whatever amount you assess in this case, if you assess any at all, in favor of the plaintiff, should be such an amount as is dictated by the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors. That is the standard, and by that standard you should fix your verdict, in the event you find in favor of the plaintiff."

Dessau, Harris & Harris, for plaintiff in error.

M. W. Harris and Daly, Moore & Cochran, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. (after stating the foregoing facts). 1. It is the duty of a street car company to select a reasonably safe place for landing passengers wherever it may stop a car for that purpose. The duty which the law imposes upon an ordinary railroad company to provide and maintain a safe place for landing its passengers has no application to a street car company operating its line along a public street or road,...