Phillips v. Georgia Ry. & Power Co.

• Decision Date: 11 May 1921
• Docket Number: 12209,12210.
• Citation: 107 S.E. 357,27 Ga.App. 21
• Parties: PHILLIPS v. GEORGIA RY. & POWER CO. (TWO CASES).
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

107 S.E. 357

27 Ga.App. 21

PHILLIPS v. GEORGIA RY. & POWER CO. (TWO CASES).

Nos. 12209, 12210.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

May 11, 1921

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Two actions, one by Mrs. J. W. Phillips and the other by J. W Phillips, against the Georgia Railway & Power Company. Judgments for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

Hill & Adams, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Colquitt & Conyers, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

BROYLES C.J.

1. In a suit for damages against a railroad company, where, under the facts of the case, the only contested issues were the liability of the defendant and the amount of the damages inflicted by it, and a verdict in favor of the defendant was returned, a charge of the court calculated to affect the finding of the jury on the question of the amount of damages only, and not calculated to affect their finding upon the question of the defendant's liability or nonliability will not require a new trial, whether erroneous or not. Edwards v. Block, 73 Ga. 450 (3); McBride v Georgia Railway & Electric Co., 125 Ga. 515 (1), 54 S.E 674. Under this ruling there is no merit in the first four grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial.

2. It is well settled by numerous and repeated decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court that in a suit against a railroad company for injuries caused by the running of its cars, and where the plaintiff was not a passenger of the company, the defendant is liable for the exercise of ordinary care only. In such a case, the phrase, "all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence," which occurs in Civil Code 1910, § 2780, means, in its last analysis, only "ordinary" care.

3. The instruction complained of in the sixth ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, when considered in the light of the facts of the case and the charge as a whole, is not erroneous for any reason assigned.

4. Under the ruling in the first paragraph above, it was not reversible error, if error at all, for the court to instruct the jury that, as no evidence had been offered to sustain the plaintiff's claim for damages on account of doctor's bills, medicine, and hiring assistants, they should not find any damages therefor. Moreover, while there was evidence as to the attendance of doctors and the hiring of assistants for housework, there was no proof whatsoever as to the value or...