Read v. City & Suburban Ry. Co.
| Citation | 41 S.E. 629,115 Ga. 366 |
| Parties | READ v. CITY & SUBURBAN RY. CO. |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1902 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. When a street railway company with reasonable promptness discovers the sagging of one of its trolley wires, which had been unexpectedly caused by the falling of a wire belonging to another, and immediately takes proper steps to prevent its wire from causing injury to travelers in the street over which the same is suspended, the company meets the legal requirements as to diligence under such circumstances.
2. Notice to the servant of a corporation with respect to a matter over which he has no authority, and as to which he has no duty to perform, is not notice to the corporation.
3. Every person must exercise due diligence in protecting himself from danger, and, failing to do so, must take the consequences.
4. The negligence of a servant in failing, while driving his master in a vehicle, to avoid danger, is imputable to the latter.
Error from city court of Savannah; T. M. Norwood, Judge.
Action by J. B. Read against the City & Suburban Railway Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
O'Connor O'Byrne & Hartridge, for plaintiff in error.
Osborne & Lawrence, for defendant in error.
At the October term, 1899, of this court, a judgment of the lower court granting a nonsuit in this case was reversed, and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings. 110 Ga. 166, 35 S.E. 170. A trial was had therein at the July term, 1900, resulting in a verdict for the defendant, and Read, the plaintiff, is now here complaining of a judgment overruling his motion for a new trial. It appears that he was injured at the intersection of Congress and Whitaker streets in the city of Savannah, by a sagging wire of the defendant company, with which he came in contact while being driven along the street first mentioned by his servant. The petition alleged that the company was negligent "in allowing said wire to hang too low, and in not keeping it in its proper place and in a safe condition." By an amendment to the petition it was alleged that, through the negligence of the company, its trolley wire had been allowed to break in the neighborhood of St. Julian and Whitaker streets, "thus causing said overhead wire to sag at the corner of Congress and Whitaker streets," in which position it was a source of danger to travelers using Congress street; and, further that the company negligently failed "to place or station a watchman or guard at said intersection of Congress and Whitaker streets for the purpose of warning pedestrians and travelers of the proximity of a dangerous instrument." The evidence was voluminous, and in many respects conflicting; that introduced in behalf of the plaintiff being, as was held when the case was here before, sufficient to warrant a verdict in his favor. On the other hand, the testimony upon which the company relied tended to show that the sagging of the wire was the result of a sudden and unexpected breaking of a trolley wire belonging to another company; that the defendant was duly diligent in discovering the condition of its wire across Congress street; that its employés gave warning to the plaintiff and his driver, as they were approaching this wire, of the danger they were about to encounter, and that this warning was wholly disregarded. There are many grounds in the motion for a new trial, but the only material points thereby presented are those dealt with below. In discussing these, such additional facts as it may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial