Seabd. Air Line Ry v. Maddox

• Decision Date: 15 January 1909
• Citation: 63 S.E. 344,131 Ga. 799
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. MADDOX.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

63 S.E. 344

131 Ga. 799

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

v.MADDOX.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 15, 1909.

1. Evidence (§ 536^*)—Opinion Evidence-Testimony of Physician.

Where, in a suit for a personal injury, a physician examined the injured party on several occasions, and on the trial gave testimony by answers to interrogatories as to the results of his examination, and his opinion in regard to the condition of the plaintiff and of the extent ind probable permanent character of the injury, there was no error in refusing to rule out his entire evidence because on cross-examination he stated that his opinion was based both upon apersonal examination and the report made to him by another physician accompanied by a sciagraph, the witness also stating that the condition of the spine of the person examined was evidently the result of an injury, and that his opinion was based upon personal examination independent of the sciagraph, and was simply confirmed by it and the report of the other physician.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2343; Dec. Dig. § 536.^*]

2. Tkial § 260*)—Instructions.

Failure to give charges orally requested during the argument of the case furnishes no ground for a new trial, where the presiding judge gave in charge the substantial law covering the issues in the case.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Trial, Cent. Dig. § 651; Dec. Dig. § 260.*]

3. Review—Nonsuit.

There was no error in refusing to grant a nonsuit. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, and none of the grounds of the motion for a new trial require a reversal.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error from Superior Court, Sumter County; Z.A. Littlejohn, Judge.

Action by Z. B. Maddox against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

E. A. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error.

Smith, Berner, Smith & Hastings, Park & Park, and Lane & Maynard, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN, J. Z. B. Maddox brought suit against the Seaboard Air Line Railway to recover damages for an injury received by him while in its service as a car repairer. He alleged that the company had an inspector, whose duties were to inspect all cars and to tag those needing repairs, and place upon the tags a memorandum of what repairs were needed on freight cars; that a certain car owned or operated by it was placed in the shop where he was engaged, with a card from the inspector calling for repairing or replacing a center sill underneath the floor, which was broken; that, in order to do the work, it was necessary to go under the car, take off the taps or nuts, and take out the broken sill; that the car was defective and unsafe, for the reason that there were no nails from the upper part of the floor passing through it and fastening it to the sills; that this was unknown to the plaintiff, and it was impossible for him to discover it; that the door of the car was fastened, and it was not his duty to go inside of it; that the foreman instructed him to go under the car and take off the taps or nuts, and that he (the foreman) would bring "a pull bar" and prize the sill from the flooring, after the removal of the taps or nuts; that, if nails had been driven through the planks of the flooring, it would have been absolutely necessary to prize the sill with a "pull bar" or some other tool before it could have been removed; that the plaintiff went under the car, as he was instructed to do by the foreman, and took off the taps or nuts; that as soon as they were removed the sill fell on his right shoulder and back, seriously injuring him; and that he was entirely without fault, and his injuries were caused by the negligence of the company. By amendment he alleged that the defect in the car, resulting from the absence of nails fastening the floor to the sills, was known by the company, or could have been known by it by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, and that he proceeded with the work in which he was engaged in the usual way in which such work was done, and knew of no danger, and was not apprised of any that would occur from doing the work in that way; and that he was not warned of any such danger. The defendant denied the substantial allegations made by the plaintiff, tending to show liability on its part. The jury found for the...