Southern Ry. Co v. Merritt

• Decision Date: 09 June 1904
• Citation: 47 S.E. 908,120 Ga. 409
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. MERRITT.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

47 S.E. 908

120 Ga. 409

SOUTHERN RY. CO.

v.MERRITT.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 9, 1904.

CARRIERS—INJURY TO PERSON ON TRAIN—EVIDENCE—INSTRUCTIONS.

1. "A verbal inaccuracy in a charge, resulting from a palpable 'slip of the tongue, ' and which clearly could not have misled the jury, is not cause for a new trial."

2. The evidence warranted the verdict, and no reason appears for reversing the judgment refusing to grant a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Gwinnett County; R. B. Russell, Judge.

Action by T. G. Merritt against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

John J. Strickland, N. L. Hutchins, Jr., and D. K. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.

H. L. Patterson and N. L. Hutchins, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. The plaintiff alleged that he went upon a train of the defendant company for the purpose of assisting certain female passengers to get upon and obtain seats in the car; that he notified the conductor of his purpose; that immediately after he entered the car, and before the passengers could be seated, the train began to move off, no signal of its departure having been given; that he hastened-to the door, and, finding the car moving too rapidly for him to safely alight, went in search of the conductor; that the conductor objected to stopping the train, but finally pulled the bell rope, telling plaintiff to come to the door of the car and prepare to alight; that he got upon a step of the car, the conductor and a negro train hand standing above him; that the conductor ordered him to jump from the car, but he refused to do so on account of the rapid rate of speed at which the train was moving; and that upon his refusal the conductor and train hand violently pushed and shoved him from the car, as a consequence of which he was severely injured. A verdict having been returned in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant made a motion for a new trial, and error is assigned upon a judgment refusing to grant this motion.

The plaintiff in error insists only upon the general grounds of the motion for a new trial, that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, and upon that ground which assigns error upon the following charge: "Then you will ascertain from the evidence, before you can find that the defendant is liable in damages to the plaintiff, either that the railroad was negligent and the plaintiff was not negligent, or that both were negligent, and by the exercise of ordinary care and...