Savannah v. Ladson

• Decision Date: 07 February 1902
• Citation: 40 S.E. 699,114 Ga. 762
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO. v. LADSON.

40 S.E. 699

114 Ga. 762

SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO.

v.LADSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 7, 1902.

TRIAL—INSTRUCTIONS—CARRIERS—ASSAULT ON PASSENGER—EVIDENCE.

1. When a defendant by his answer joins issue with the plaintiff without demurring to the petition, it is not erroneous for the court to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff proves his case as laid he is entitled to recover.

2. The charge in the present case, in so far as it dealt with damages the amount of which was to be arrived at by "the enlightened consciences of impartial jurors, " indicated with sufficient clearness that the damages thus referred to were those arising from pain and suffering.

3. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to warrant the verdict.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Clinch county; Jas. W. Bennet, Judge.

Action by C. Ladson against the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

R. G. Dickerson and D. H. Pope, for plaintiff in error.

Toomer & Reynolds and S. C. Townsend, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN, P. J. In his petition against the Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Company, Charles Ladson alleged that on the 14th day of January, 1899, he was lawfully upon the platform of the passenger depot of the company at its station in Ho-mervllle, and that while he was so upon such platform he "was willfully assaulted and wantonly forcibly knocked from said passenger depot platform by one Massey, the agent and representative of said company, then and there in the employment and service of the said company, and having charge of said station premises, depot and platform, " and that in this manner divers severe personal injuries were inflicted upon the plaintiff. The defendant denied all the material allegations of the petition, but did not by demurrer challenge its sufficiency. The case went to trial, and, upon decidedly conflicting evidence, resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant thereupon filed a motion for a new trial, and upon the overruling thereof assigns error in its bill of exceptions.

1. In his charge to the jury the presiding judge, in substance, instructed them that, if the plaintiff established to their satisfaction the material allegations of his petition, he was entitled to a recovery. This charge is excepted to on the ground that a railway company is not in law liable for a tort committed by its agent, unless the unlawful act was done by him while acting within the scope of his agency in and about the company's business. As an abstract proposition, the rule of law insisted upon by counsel for the company is undoubtedly sound; but, in view of the record before us, it has no application whatever to the present case. The plaintiff alleged that he was beaten and misused by Massey, who was the company's agent; but there was no clear and distinct allegation that the beating took place while the agent was, as such, engaged In the service or business of the company. Hadthe sufficiency of the petition been challenged by a proper special demur...