Pacetti v. Cent. Op Ga. Ry. Co
| Citation | 6 Ga. App. 97,64 S.E. 302 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1909 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1,660.) |
| Parties | PACETTI. v. CENTRAL OP GEORGIA RY. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
In a petition seeking damages on account of negligence, an allegation that the defendant "knew or ought to have known" of a matter, knowledge of which is essential to raise the duty and the consequent liability for neglect, is equivocal, and will be construed as asserting merely the conclusion of the pleader that the defendant had constructive knowledge. Such an allegation is permissible, however, when the petition alleges specific facts showing a relationship or a set of circumstances which impose upon the defendant a duty to anticipate or to know of the thing in question. The facts set forth in the present petition were adequate to show a violated duty of anticipation.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 12-28 1/2; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]
Persons confronted by a dangerous situation, or by an emergency or other circumstances likely to impair judgment and ordinary discretion, are not held to the same quantum of care as they would be otherwise. The question as to whether the plaintiff was guilty of such contributory negligence as to defeat her cause of action for the defendant's negligence is issuable under the facts alleged in the petition.
A pleader may, without subjecting his petition to demurrer, allege matters by way of general conclusion, where the specific facts upon which the conclusion rests are detailed with requisite definiteness.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 29; Dec. Dig. § 9.*]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Savannah; Davis Freeman, Judge.
Action by A. C. Pacetti against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
This case comes to this court upon the sustaining of demurrers, general and special, to the plaintiff's petition. The substance of the plaintiff's petition is that she went to the passenger station of the defendant in Savannah, in company with other relatives, to bid her brother adieu; that she and her immediate party were standing in the lobby of the station, near one of the gates which led from the general waiting room to the train shed. A set of gates constructed of transverse collapsable iron bars shut off the crowd in the waiting room from the train shed. It was a special occasion, and a large number of persons had gathered in the waiting room and were surging down in the direction of the gate, so that they might enter as soon as the guard stationed there should open the gate. A gentleman accompanied by two ladies shoved his way through the crowd and approached the gate. The guard made preparations to open it and permit the gentle-man and the ladies to enter. The crowd to the rear of the plaintiff, seeing that the gate was about to be opened, and thinking that all who wished would be permitted to enter, surged forward and pushed against the plaintiff, and she was being pushed in the direction of the gate, when, for the purpose of lessening the blow which would ensue from the pushing of her body against the gate, she extended her left arm and hand and placed it against the gate. While the plaintiff's hand was thus on the movable framework of the gate, "in plain view of the gatekeeper, " he opened it violently, and, as the bars closed up, her thumb was caught between two of the bars, as if between the blades of a pair of shears, and was severely cut, bruised, and crushed. She cried out, and the guard then closed the gate and released her thumb, and she pushed on through the gate.
The eighth paragraph of the petition, to which a special demurrer was sustained, is as follows: It is also alleged in the petition, in general terms, that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due and ordinary care, and did not contribute to her injuries; also that she was at a place where she had a right to be and where the public was invited to come. The twelfth paragraph of the petition, to which a special demurrer was sustained, is as follows: "Petitioner further shows that the injuries which she sustained were due entirely to the negligence and want of care of said defendant company, in that (1) the said gatekeeper, as the agent and employs of said defendant company, knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that at the time he opened said gate your petitioner's body was crushed against the same, that she was unable to remove her hand from the surface of the gate or to prevent her body from pressing against the gate, because of the crush of the crowd to her rear, and, so knowing, the said agent and employ^ of said defendant company willfully did that which was calculated to injure and damage your petitioner; (2) in that the said defendant railway company did not afford to your petitioner that protection which is due to the public while lawfully on the ground around its station, but, on the contrary, negligently and carelessly permitted her to receive injury, as above described, at the hands of its agent, servant, and employe."
The special demurrers were as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ware v. Alston
...has a right to choose even a dangerous course, if that course seems the safest one under the circumstances.' Pacetti v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 6 Ga.App. 97, 102, 64 S.E. 302, 304; Horton v. Sanchez, 57 Ga.App. 612, 620, 195 S.E. 873; Pollard v. Weeks, supra; Morrow v. Southeastern Stages, I......
-
Lamb v. Redemptorist Fathers of Ga., Inc.
...if the specific facts otherwise alleged are such as to raise a duty on the part of the defendant to know. Pacetti v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 6 Ga.App. 97, 101(1), 64 S.E. 302. Paraphrasing what was said by Judge Powell in that case: Normally, perhaps, the operator of a place of public re......
-
Fulton Ice & Coal Co v. Pece
...Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga. App. 607(1), 58 S. E. 1060; Monahan v. National Realty Co., 4 Ga. App. 680(1), 62 S. E. 127; Pacetti v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 6 Ga. App. 97(1). 64 S. E. 302; Moone v. Smith, 6 Ga. App. 649(1), 65 S. E. 712; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ga. 600(1). 58 ......
-
Tufts v. Threlkeld, (No. 14720.)
...is good against demurrer. Southern States Portland Cement Co. v. Helms, 2 Ga. App. 30S (1), 58 S. E. 524; Pacetti v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 6 Ga. App. 97 (3), 64 S. E. 302; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Roberts, 144 Ga. 250 (1), 86 S. E. 933. A conclusion in a pleading will be subje......