Rome R. Co v. Tolbert
| Decision Date | 07 May 1890 |
| Parties | Rome R. Co. v. Tolbert. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Railroad Companies—Personal Injuries— —Stranger in Switching Yard.
1. Where a person not an employe, without permission of a railroad company, and against its will, and without its knowledge, goes into a yard covered and interlaced by tracks, which are being used by the company, by its engines and cars, in switching, drilling, and changing cars, such person is bound to use diligence commensurate with the peril in which he has placed himself; and if he fail to do this he cannot recover for any injury he may sustain from the running of the engines and cars of the company.
2. Under such circumstances the company would owe the trespasser no duty other than not to injure him if they knew or saw him in time to prevent it.
8. The company would not be bound to look and watch for such person as it would for one of its own employes, and as it would for a person on its main line of travel while going on its accustomed duties in transporting persons and things from one place to another.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Floyd county; Maddox, Judge.
The following facts are from the official report, as referred to by the court: The testimony for plaintiff tended to show that on November 2, 1887, late in the afternoon, in daylight, he was going to his home in South Rome. The nearest and most convenient way for him to reach his home was by going through the railroad yard of defendant, and he had been going that way for two years. He passed along the platform of defendant's depot, and got off the platform and walked along between the tracks in its yard. When he left the platform he saw the engine and train of defendant, by which he was afterwards struck, standing still north of the depot near a street crossing. He walked along between the tracks, and as he was approaching, and near to where two tracks came together, an East Tennessee engine came down a track towards him, and the engine of defendant backing with the tender behind it also came towards him. He saw the East Tennessee engine coming, but did not know of the approach of the other, which gave him no signal of its approach, either by ringing the bell or blowing its whistle, although he was very near to where there was a crossing com monly used by the public in going across defendant's yard. The two tracks were so close together that, while there was room for him to stand between them at the point where he was struck, there was not room enough for the engine to pass him at the same time in safety to him, and he was struck by the tender of defendant's engine, and was knocked down, and his collar-bone broken. The place where he was walking was quite commonly used by foot passengers, as set out in his declaration, and had been so used for a long time, with the knowledge of defendant. If plaintiff had stepped back a little he would not have been hurt, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial