Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co. v. Slater
| Decision Date | 03 April 1893 |
| Citation | 17 S.E. 350,92 Ga. 391 |
| Parties | SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO. v. SLATER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The plaintiff, while in his proper place on the crossing, having been injured by a stick of wood which either fell or was thrown from the tender of a passing locomotive on the defendant's railway, and there being no evidence tending to show that the stick was willfully or maliciously thrown at him, the case was one resting on the doctrine of negligence either in permitting the stick to fall, or in casting it from the tender without due caution or circumspection. The charge of the court covering, and not going beyond, these elements was proper.
2. That the negligence was chargeable to the company's employes while acting within the scope of their duties is, under section 3033 of the Code, a necessary inference from the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
3. The verdict was not excessive, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.
Error from superior court, Wayne county; Spencer R. Atkinson Judge.
Action by R. B. Slater against the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company to recover for personal injuries received by being struck by a stick of wood thrown from a passing engine of defendant. There was judgment for plaintiff, and, a motion for a new trial being denied, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
The following is the official report:
Slater sued the railway company for damages from personal injuries claimed to have been received by him by being struck by a stick of wood thrown from a passing engine of defendant. He obtained a verdict for $1,500. Defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and it excepted. The motion contained the general grounds that the verdict was contrary to law, evidence, etc., and was unreasonable, unjust, and excessive. Also because the court erred in charging: "A railroad company shall be liable for any damage done to person, stock, or other property by the running of the locomotives or cars or other machinery of such company, or for damages done by any person in the employment and service of such company, unless the company shall make it appear that their agents had exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the company." The error alleged was that this charge excluded from the jury all consideration of whether the injury was done by an employe of defendant acting within the scope of his duty, or was the result of the personal wrong of such employe while acting outside of his authority; the undisputed fact having been...
To continue reading
Request your trial