Peterson v. Wadley & Mt. v. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1903 |
| Citation | 43 S.E. 713,117 Ga. 390 |
| Parties | PETERSON v. WADLEY & MT. V. R. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, in a suit against a railway company for damages, the jury returns a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, he cannot justly complain of an erroneous charge touching his right to recover, nor of any other error which did not operate to his prejudice.
2. It cannot, as matter of law or of fact, be assumed by a reviewing court that in such a case the jury would have found in favor of the plaintiff a larger sum as damages had not the trial judge improperly admitted proof of the irrelevant fact that all of the capital stock of the defendant company was owned by a single individual.
3. There was, in the present case, no error in omitting to instruct the jury that they "might award the plaintiff damages for future pain and suffering."
Error from Superior Court, Emanuel County; B. D. Evans, Judge.
Action by Lillie Peterson against the Wadley & Mt. Vernon Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, who brings error because of the insufficiency of the amount. Affirmed.
T. E Watson, Jno. T. West, and Jas. K. Hines, for plaintiff in error.
R. L Gamble and W. R. Daley, for defendant in error.
An action for damages was brought against the railroad company by Lillie Peterson, who, while riding as a passenger upon the defendant's train, received personal injuries, caused by the coach in which she was seated becoming derailed and overturned. The casualty was brought about by the breaking of the flange on one of the wheels of the car. The company undertook to show that the wheels under this car had been properly inspected on the morning of the day when the plaintiff's injuries were received, and that the defect in the flange which broke was a latent imperfection, which could not have been discovered. What was supposed to be a portion of this flange was subsequently found lying upon the track about two miles from the place where the car became derailed, though no effort to verify the conclusion that this piece of iron had, in point of fact, formed a part of the broken wheel, was made by attempting to "fit" this piece into the break left in the flange of that wheel. This piece of iron was tendered and admitted in evidence with a view to showing that the defect in the wheel was a latent one, and that the flange had not become sufficiently worn to render the wheel unsafe. A witness for the plaintiff testified that soon after the catastrophe he made an examination of the wheels of the coach, and found that the "flanges were worn very thin." He further stated that he had measured "the broken gap" in the wheel having the defective flange, and expressed the opinion that the piece of iron found upon the track was smaller and thicker than that which had been broken out of that flange. The jury returned a verdict for $1,000 in favor of the plaintiff. Being dissatisfied with the amount of their finding, she made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and she excepted.
1. Complaint was made in the motion that the court erred in admitting in evidence the piece of iron which the company contended had formed a part of the wheel which was broken also, that error was committed in refusing to allow the plaintiff to prove "that this car of defendant had run off three or four years before this accident." Were we--as we are not--inclined to think error was committed in either of these rulings, we would be unwarranted in holding the error was prejudicial to the plaintiff, since she won the case notwithstanding. The same reply may be made to the plaintiff's contention that the court incorrectly charged as to the burden of proof which rested upon her, and committed error in telling the jury she would have no right to recover if they believed she could, "by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the defendant's negligence." That they did not so believe is evidenced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial