Seabd. Air Line Ry v. Pierce

• Decision Date: 13 May 1904
• Citation: 120 Ga. 230,47 S.E. 581
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. PIERCE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

47 S.E. 581

120 Ga. 230

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.

v.PIERCE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 13, 1904.

INJURY TO SERVANT—RAILROADS—DERAILMENT OF ENGINE — ACTION FOR DAMAGES—SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION—GENERAL AND SPECIAL DEMURRERS.

1. A petition in a suit against a railroad company, alleging that the plaintiff's husband was an engineer of the company, and was killed by the derailment of the engine' which he was running on the defendant's road, without fault on his part, and averring that such killing was "negligent, wrongful, and inexcusable, " was not open to general demurrer.

2. But a petition containing only such general allegations of negligence was not sufficient to withstand a special demurrer setting up that it failed to set forth any specific acts of negligence.

¶ 2. See Master and Servant, vol. 34, Cent. Dig. § 818.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Savannah; T. M. Norwood, Judge.

Action by Mary. Pierce against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

J. Randolph Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

Twiggs & Oliver, for defendant in error.

FISH, P. J. Mary Pierce sued the Seaboard Air Line Railway for damages for the homicide of her husband. The allegations of her petition material to the questions made by the record now before us were, in brief, that her husband, while in the employment of the defendant as a locomotive engineer, was on a given date running an engine of a passenger train over the defendant's road at the rapid rate of speed demanded by the schedule of such train; that the engine, when it reached a switch at a designated place on the road, became derailed and was overturned, and petitioner's husband was pinned beneath the cab of the engine and his skull crushed, from which injuries he died two days therafter; that he was entirely free from fault at the time; and that, "By reason of the negligent, wrongful, and inexcusable killing of * * * petitioner's * * * husband as aforesaid, * * * petitioner" was entitled to recover a designated sum as damages for his homicide. The defendant duly filed a demurrer to the petition on the grounds that it failed to allege any act of negligence on the part of the defendant showing a cause of action, and failed "to apprise * * * defendant of the specific grounds by reason of which it [was] contended that * * * defendant [could] be held liable in the * * * suit, so as to enable [the] defendant to make proper or intelligent answer, * * * and to prepare for trial in said case." The demurrer went over until the trial term, and on the day it was passed on the defendant made a motion to dismiss the case on the groundthat the petition did not set out a cause of action. The court overruled the demurrer and the motion on the same day, and on that day the defendant excepted to both of said rulings.

1. Was the petition sufficient to withstand...