Seabd. & R. R. Co v. Cauthen

• Decision Date: 29 April 1902
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: SEABOARD & R. R. CO. et al. v. CAUTHEN et al.

41 S.E. 653

115 Ga. 422

SEABOARD & R. R. CO. et al.

v.CAUTHEN et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 29, 1902.

CARRIERS—SHIPMENT OF LIVE STOCK—LIMITING LIABILITY—NEGLIGENCE.

1. Gross neglect, as defined by section 2900 of the Civil Code, "is the want of that care which every man of common sense, how inattentive soever he may he, takes of his own property." A court, in undertaking to give to a jury this definition, should not omit the words "how inattentive soever he may be."

2. Where, in a special contract for the transportation of live stock, it is expressly stipulated that, "in case of accident to or delays of time from any cause whatever, the owner and shipper is to feed, water, and to take proper care of stock at his own expense, " and that the owner or person in charge of the stock is to have "all propel facilities on trains and at stations for taking care of" the stock so shipped, he being, for this purpose, furnished free transportation, and required to ride upon the train carrying the stock, there is no duty upon the railway company of feeding or watering the animals, and it cannot, under such a contract, be held liable for any damages resulting from a failure on its part so to do.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Elberton; P. P. Proffitt, Judge.

Action by Cauthen & Turner against the Seaboard & Roanoke Railroad Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants bring error. Reversed.

H. J. Brewer and Erwin & Brown, for plaintiffs in error.

Jos. N. Worley, for defendants in error.

FISH, J. Cauthen & Turner brought an action against the Seaboard & Roanoke Railroad Company and the Raleigh & Gaston Railroad Company to recover damages which the plaintiff alleged that he had sustained by reason of the delay of the defendants in the transportation of a car load of cattle from Elberton, Ga., to Portsmouth, Va., and in consequence of want of proper care and attention to the cattle by defendants while in course of transportation. Upon the trial there was a verdict for the plaintiffs. Defendants' motion for a new trial being overruled, they excepted. The shipment was made under a written contract, a copy of which was attached to the petition. The portions of this contract material to this discussion were as follows: "Now, in consideration of said railroad's agreeing to transport the above-described live stock at the reduced rate of fifty-two dollars per car load and a freepassage to the owner or his agent on the train with the stock, the said owner and shipper do hereby assume (and release the said railroads from) all injury, loss, and damage or depreciation which the animals, or either of them, may suffer in consequence of either of them being weak or escaping...