Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Booth

• Decision Date: 15 November 1895
• Citation: 25 S.E. 928,98 Ga. 20
• Parties: SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO. v. BOOTH.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

25 S.E. 928

98 Ga. 20

SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO. v. BOOTH.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 15, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Where a railroad company furnishes to one of its patrons a car to be used by him in loading freight to be delivered to it for transportation, it is liable to a servant of the patron for injuries resulting to such servant from the defective construction of the car; provided the defect be of such a character as to be discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care upon the part of the railroad company, and provided, further, the injuries complained of were inflicted under such circumstances as that the person injured, by the exercise of ordinary care, could not have avoided the consequences resulting to him from the negligent act of the railroad company in furnishing for the use of such patron and his servants such defective car.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a finding that the death of the plaintiff's husband was, without fault on his part, occasioned by reason of defects in the defendant's car, and that its defective condition was due to the defendant's negligence. A careful examination of the several grounds of the motion for a new trial discloses no cause for setting the verdict aside.

Error from superior court, Ware county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.

Action by Martha Booth against the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Erwin Du Bignon & Chisholm and S.W. Hitch, for plaintiff in error.

Symmes & Bennet and L. A. Wilson, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON J.

Cribb owned a sawmill on the line of the defendant company's railroad, and was accustomed to receive from it flat cars to be loaded by his employés with lumber while standing on a siding of the company located at his mill, and then to be delivered to the company for transportation over its line of railroad to market. Upon one occasion a flat car was delivered by the defendant company to be so loaded, and while the employés of Cribb were engaged in this work, it turned over, and in consequence the lumber with which it was partially loaded fell upon one of them, and inflicted injuries upon him of which he died. The employé so injured was the husband of the plaintiff in the present action. It was alleged that the car was defective in that the pin which coupled the platform to the trucks was too short, and was further defective in that it was not so keyed as to prevent its drawing in the event the platform should careen. Upon the trial a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and, the trial judge having overruled the defendant's motion for a new trial, the case is now here for review.

The question of law, as to whether, under the circumstances, the defendant company owed to the servant of Cribb, its patron any duty, and, if so, the measure of that duty, is the only one presented by the record into which it is necessary to enter upon an extended discussion; and inasmuch as an examination of the evidence shows that it was sufficient to support a finding that the death of the plaintiff's husband, without fault on his part, was occasioned by reason of the defects in the defendant's car, as described in the declaration, and that its defective condition was due to the defendant's negligence, we will proceed to inquire as to the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff for injuries resulting from the breach of the supposed duty to her husband.

No contract relation existed between the plaintiff's husband and the defendant company, and hence it owed him no duty resting upon the contract relation of master and servant. But privity of contract is not always essential to create a liability. It may arise as well out of the relative situation of the parties. Stewart v. Harvard College, 12 Allen, 58; Wood, Mast. & Serv. 912; ...