Southern Transp. Co v. Harper

• Decision Date: 14 August 1903
• Citation: 45 S.E. 458,118 Ga. 672
• Parties: SOUTHERN TRANSP. CO. v. HARPER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

45 S.E. 458

118 Ga. 672

SOUTHERN TRANSP. CO.

v.HARPER.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 14, 1903.

CARRIERS—INJURY TO PASSENGERS—NEGLIGENCE.

1. No acts of negligence having been proved as alleged in the petition, the verdict for the plantiff should have been set aside as contrary to law and the evidence.

2. The running down and trampling upon a passenger of a steamboat by his fellow passengers is not a consequence to be reasonably anticipated from the striking of a steamboat against the pier of a drawbridge, it appearing that at the time the vessel was going very slowly, and that her collision with the pier was due to the fact that, owing to a high wind and rising tide, she had drifted out of her course.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

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

Action by W. H. Harper against the Southern Transportation Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Saussey & Saussey, for plaintiff in error.

Twiggs & Oliver, for defendant in error.

CANDLER, J. This was a suit for damages on account of personal injuries, in which the plaintiff obtained a verdict for $500. The case comes before this court on exceptions to the overruling of the defendant's motion for a new trial. It appears that the plaintiff was a passenger on a steamboat of the defendant company, which plied on the Savannah river between Savannah and Augusta, and in the course of its passage it was necessary for the vessel to pass between the piers of a drawbridge situated a few miles above the city of Savannah. The petition alleged that "the pilot at the wheel of said steamer, then and there steering and piloting the same as an officer, agent, servant, and employe of said defendant company, ran the said steamer into and against a pier" of the bridge to which reference has been made. The plaintiff was at the time seated in a chair in a portion of the boat reserved for negro passengers. He testified: "I was knocked from my chair when the boat hit the bridge, and the people were pouring out I jumped up, and twenty-five or thirty rushed over me and knocked me back in the chair. * * * I started to get up again. Eight or ten knocked me down. All the people rushed from that side, and everybody rushed out Being helpless, and down on the floor, the people rushed over me." There was ample evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the plaintiff's pain and suffering had been intense, and that his injuries were serious and permanent. Aside from the extract from the petition which we have already quoted, the only allegation of negligence was in the following language: "Your petitioner avers that the injuries he has sustained, as described above, are due entirely to the negligence of the said defendant, its servants, agents and employes, in running the said steamer into and striking against the pier of said * * * bridge." The defense relied on by the defendant company, which was substantially supported by the evidence offered in its behalf, was, in effect, that the collision between the vessel and the pier of the bridge was due to causes entirely beyond its control; that its officers and employes were at the time in the exercise of all possible care and diligence; that the distance between the piers of the bridge through which the steamer had to pass was only a few feet greater than the width of the boat, making it difficult under the most favorable circumstances for this vessel to pass through without striking one side or the other; that on the occasion in question the tide was rising, and a high wind blowing, rendering the difficulty still greater; and that on account of the tide and wind the steamer "was drifted out of her course in spite of the efforts of her captain to steer her free of the said drawbridge, and, after so entering the said opening, the starboard quarter of the said steamer struck against the pier of the said bridge." The answer also averred "that, if injured at all, the said plaintiff was injured by another and distinct cause" from the striking of the vessel against the pier, "to wit, by the...