Murphy v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co
| Decision Date | 27 August 1892 |
| Citation | 15 S.E. 774,89 Ga. 832 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Murphy v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co. |
Carriers—Injuries to Passenger — Negligence —Presumptions. Under the facts disclosed by the evidence in this case, it appears to the satisfaction of a majority of this court that the injury received by the plaintiff resulted from a mere accident, and was not due to any negligence on the part of the railroad company or its servants. The presumption of negligence which the law raises against the company was rebutted by the evidence introduced by the plaintiff himself; arid the court, therefore, did not err in granting a nonsuit.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
When a passenger upon the train of a railroad company is injured by a direct act of one of the company's servants, in suddenly opening a closet door, the statute, (Code, § 3033,) presumes the servant was negligent in performing the act, unless the contrary affirmatively appears. So long as the evidence discloses nothing for or against the servant's diligence, the presumption of negligence prevails, and no theory of accident can arise. In view of this rule of law, and its application to the facts of the present case, the court erred in granting a nonsuit. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff changed the onus, and cast the burden of explanation upon the company. Per Bleckley,
C. J., dissenting.
Error from city court of Newnan; A. D. Freeman, Judge.
Action for personal injuries by Jos. W. Murphy against the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company. Plaintiff was nonsuited, and brings error. Affirmed.
The following is the official report, in substance:
Plaintiff's testimony makes the following case: He bought a first-class ticket for the usual fare, and boarded the defendant's passenger train. He went into the first-class car, and took a stand in the aisle near the water-closet, braced his left hand on the door of the closet, and caught hold of the arm of the seat on the opposite side with his right hand, to steady himself, and prevent the motion of the cars from throwing him down. He gave the conductor the ticket. He did not ask the conductor for a seat, but Baker, who boarded the train at the same station with him, asked the conductor for seats for both of them, (they were standing together,) and the conductor said he would try to get them seats. The plaintiff saw nothing more of him. After traveling about seven miles to the next station, the train stopped, and plaintiff went into the next coach to get a seat, and,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorn v. Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co.
...facts as disclosed in the case at bar. [4] But appellant contends that the evidence overcame the presumption mentioned. In Murphy v. Railway, 89 Ga. 832, 15 S. E. 774, it affirmatively appeared that there was no defect, and in Kelly v. Ry., 109 N. Y. 44, 15 N. E. 879, that the defendant had......
-
Dorn v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
... ... But ... appellant contends that the evidence overcame the presumption ... mentioned. In Murphy v. Railway, 89 Ga. 832 (15 S.E ... 774), it affirmatively appeared that there was no defect, and ... in Kelly v. Ry., 109 N.Y. 44 (15 N.E. 879), ... ...
-
Rushin v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
... ... directed to the cases of Hardwick v. Georgia R. Co., ... 85 Ga. 507, 11 S.E. 832, Ham v. Georgia R. Co., 97 ... Ga. 411, 24 S.E. 152, and Murphy v. Atlanta & West Point ... R. Co., 89 Ga. 832, 15 S.E. 774, which are claimed to ... support the contention of the railroad company that no cause ... ...
-
Rushin v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry.Co
...of Hardwick v. Georgia R. Co., 85 Ga. 507, 11 S. E. 832, Ham v. Georgia R. Co., 97 Ga. 411, 24 S. E. 152, and Murphy v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 89 Ga. 832, 15 S. E. 774, which are claimed to support the contention of the railroad company that no cause of action is set out in the petiti......