Matthews v. Raleigh & G.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 August 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 926,111 Ga. 711
• Parties: MATTHEWS v. RALEIGH & G. R. CO. et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

36 S.E. 926

111 Ga. 711

MATTHEWS v. RALEIGH & G. R. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 7, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

The controlling questions at issue being whether or not there were two methods for doing the work in which the plaintiff was engaged, the one safe and the other dangerous; and whether or not, if this was true, he negligently chose the latter; and the evidence not being such as to demand findings on these questions adverse to the plaintiff,--it was error to grant a nonsuit.

Error from superior court, Elbert county; S. Reese, Judge.

Action by Walter Matthews against the Raleigh & Gaston Railroad Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

C. T Ladson and Geo. C. Grogan, for plaintiff in error.

Erwin & Brown and H. J. Brewer, for defendants in error.

COBB J.

When an employé of a railroad company has his choice of two ways in which to perform a duty, the one safe, and the other dangerous, though convenient, he is bound to select the safe method. Railway Co. v. Head, 92 Ga. 723, 18 S.E 976; Railway Co. v. Harbin (Ga.) 36 S.E. 218; Quirouet v. Railroad Co., Id. 599. It is true that in the two cases last cited the court had under consideration cases founded upon causes of action arising in the state of Alabama, but the principle ruled is the law of this state. If there is no dispute about the facts, and the only lawful verdict that could be rendered would be one finding that there were two ways in which to perform the duty, the one safe and the other manifestly dangerous, and that the employé had negligently chosen the latter method, then the court would be authorized to set aside a verdict finding otherwise as was done in the Head and Harbin Cases, supra; or to direct a verdict for the defendant, as was done in the Quirouet Case. If, under the facts, an issue arose as to whether there were two ways, or as to whether, conceding that there were two ways, one was manifestly dangerous, and whether in the latter case the employé chose that method, or whether there were two methods, one attended with less danger than the other, and the employé chose the more dangerous, then the issues thus raised should be submitted-to a jury, and it would be error to grant a nonsuit. Railroad Co. v. De Bray, 71 Ga. 406 (Syl., point 15), 424. Applying the principles above referred to to the present case, the judge erred in granting a nonsuit. Even if it be...