Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co., 73648

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Citation188 Ga.App. 623,373 S.E.2d 774
Docket NumberNo. 73648,73648
PartiesSOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. GEORGIA KRAFT COMPANY.
Decision Date07 September 1988

Page 774

373 S.E.2d 774
188 Ga.App. 623
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

v.
GEORGIA KRAFT COMPANY.
No. 73648.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sept. 7, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 3, 1988.

Page 775

[188 Ga.App. 625] Burt Derieux, Eileen M. Crowley, Keith J. Reisman, Atlanta, L. Hugh Kemp, Dalton, for appellant.

W. Wray Eckl, Julia Anderson, Atlanta, for appellee.

[188 Ga.App. 623] BENHAM, Judge.

Appellant was the plaintiff in this case, suing appellee for damages which were caused by the collision of a pulpwood truck with a train. Appellee's asserted liability

Page 776

was based on appellant's contention that the driver of the truck was appellee's agent and was negligent in causing the collision. The jury returned a verdict which found that the driver was not appellee's agent, and judgment was entered for appellee.

On the first appearance of this case at 183 Ga.App. 884, 360 S.E.2d 605 (1987), we affirmed the trial court's judgment. On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed our judgment (258 Ga. 232, 367 S.E.2d 539 (1988)) and remanded the case to this court with direction to take such further action as may be necessary to give effect to its opinion. That action includes making the judgment of the Supreme Court the judgment of this court and, because a new trial is mandated by the Supreme Court's decision, deciding matters involving the issue of negligence, all of which were mooted by our prior decision.

1. For the reasons stated in the Supreme Court's opinion, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

2. Appellant's first enumeration of error complains of the admission of evidence that the crossing signal at the crossing where the collision occurred had malfunctioned on at least two occasions in the recent past. We find no error there.

Appellant put on evidence that the crossing signals had been maintained regularly and were operational when the collision occurred, and that a failure to operate was not possible. To rebut that evidence, appellee was entitled to put on evidence that malfunctions were possible and had occurred. Williams v. Naidu, 168 Ga.App. 539, 540, 309 S.E.2d 686 (1983).

3. In appellant's second enumeration of error, it contends there was no evidence to authorize the trial court's charge to the effect that appellant had a duty to maintain crossing signals and that there was a question of fact whether it had done so at the crossing involved here. Appellant's evidence on this question was that the signals could [188 Ga.App. 624] not malfunction; appellee put on evidence that they had. An inference which could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Johns v. CSX Transp., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • 28 Septiembre 2016
    ...railroads of their duty to take all reasonable precautions to maintain grade crossing safety, Southern R. Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co. , 188 Ga.App. 623, 624, 373 S.E.2d 774, 776 (1988), including, for example identifying and bringing to the attention of the relevant authorities dangers posed b......
  • Csx Transportation, Inc v. Easterwood Easterwood v. Csx Transportation, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 21 Abril 1993
    ...the railroads of their duty to take all reasonable precautions to maintain grade crossing safety, Southern R. Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co., 188 Ga.App. 623, 624, 373 S.E.2d 774, 776 (1988), including, for example, identifying and bringing to the attention of the relevant authorities dangers pos......
  • Evans Timber Co. v. Central of Ga. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 22 Junio 1999
    ...a common-law cause of action against a railroad for the failure to install adequate warning signals. See Southern R. Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 188 Ga.App. 623(5), 373 S.E.2d 774 (1988); Wall v. Southern R. Co., 196 Ga.App. 483, 396 S.E.2d 266 (1990); Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Markert, 200 Ga.App......
  • Csx Transp. v. Trism Specialized Carriers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • 4 Junio 1998
    ...200 Ga.App. 851, 410 S.E.2d 437 (1991); Wall v. Southern Ry. Co., 196 Ga.App. 483, 396 S.E.2d 266 (1990); Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co., 188 Ga. App. 623, 373 S.E.2d 774 (1988). In Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co., the trial court charged the jury that it was to decide whether ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A Better Orientation for Jury Instructions - Charles M. Cork, Iii
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 54-1, September 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...permitting" clause, it should have given defendant s instruction on impossibili- ty of performance). 134. S. R.R. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 188 Ga. App. 623, 624, 373 S.E.2d 774, 776 (1988), overruled on other grounds. 135. See, e.g., Spearman v. Ga. Bldg. Auth., 224 Ga. App. 801, 803, 482 S.E.2d 4......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT