Southern Ry. Co v. Winn

Decision Date14 July 1920
Docket Number(No. 11110.)
Citation103 S.E. 733,25 Ga.App. 438
PartiesSOUTHERN RY. CO. v. WINN.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Error from City Court of Brunswick; D. W. Krauss, Judge.

Action by Mary Winn against the Southern Railway Company. Verdict for defend-ant, new trial granted, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Rennet, Twitty & Reese, J. T. Colson, and F. M. Scarlett, Jr., all of Brunswick, for plaintiff in error.

Oliver & Oliver, of Savannah, and D. M. Clark, of Jesup, for defendant in error.

LUKE, J. Mrs. Mary Winn sued the Southern Railway Company for damages, alleging that her minor son, upon whom she was dependent, boarded a passenger train of the defendant, as a passenger, for the purpose of being transported from Brunswick, Ga., to Jesup; that the train was crowded and her son could not get a seat in the coaches and was forced to ride on the platform of the rear car of the train; that among the passengers were five other persons (naming them) who were not seated, and who were intoxicated and disorderly on the train, and that these persons had trouble with the ticket collector, and that the porter on the train restrained them from doing the ticket collector harm; that her son was sober and had not been drinking at all; that the persons named who were drunk went out on the platform where her son was standing and invited him to take a drink with them and he courteously declined; that the said persons stuck their bottles of whisky to his mouth and undertook to force him to drink, and that he still refused to drink; that three of the said persons, without any provocation whatever, assaulted her son and struck him several times, and knocked him off of the rapidly moving train, and he was instantly killed thereby. It was alleged that the company, its servants, agents, and employes were negligent, as follows:

"In not providing sufficient cars for the accommodation of the passengers of the train, and in not providing sufficient seating capacity for all passengers on the train; in permitting drunken, riotous, and disorderly passengers to be upon the train; in not restraining drunken, riotous, and disorderly passengers from interfering with the peace, comfort, and safety of petitioner's son; in not restraining the said drunken, riotous, and disorderly passengers from committing an assault upon petitioner's son, and through said assault knocking him from the train."

The jury, after hearing the evidence, returned a verdict in favor of the defendant,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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