The Augusta v. Renz
| Decision Date | 31 July 1875 |
| Parties | The Augusta and Summerville Railroad Company, plaintiff in error. v. Jacob Renz, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Railroads. Evidence. Negligence. Pleadings. Verdict. Sunday. Before Judge Tompkins. Richmond Superior Court. April Term. 1875.
Reported in the decision.
Frank H. Miller, for plaintiff in error.
H. Clay Foster, for defendant.
*Warner, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant to recover damages for injuries sustained by him as a passenger whilst being transported on its road, in consequence of the alleged careless, negligent and unskillful management of the defendant, its servants and agents, in operating its cars and coachesupon its said road, whereby he was thrown from its car and his arm broken, to his damage $5,000 00. On the trial of the case, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $1,-250 00. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, on the several grounds therein stated, and also made a motion in arrest of judgment, both of which motions were overruled, and the defendant excepted.
It appears from the evidence in the record that there was a short, steep curve in the defendant's road; that in passing it the driver of the car put whip to the horses drawing it, so as to enable them to surmount the steep curve with the loaded car, which was done so suddenly as to throw the plaintiff off the platform of the car, where he was standing, breaking his arm. The car was full of passengers, some standing on the platform; the plaintiff was standing on the platform of the car when the conductor received his fare.
1. The main question in the case was whether the evidence showed that the plaintiff was injured by the carelessness and negligence of the defendant in conducting its business as the carrier of passengers for hire on its road. The defendant made several requests of the court to charge the jury, which were refused, and instead thereof it charged the jury the law applicable to the facts of the case, as contained in the 3033d and 3034th sections of the Code. We find no error, in view of the evidence contained in the record, in the refusal of the court to charge as requested, or in the charge as given. The sections of the Code before cited embraced the correct principles of the law applicable to the facts in the case. There was no error in allowing the witnesses to testify that since the injury to the plaintiff the defendant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, (No. 6148.)
...the opinion that our answer must be controlled by the same reasoning as used by this court in Augusta & Summerville Railroad Co. v. Renz, 55 Ga. 127 (4), 128, where Chief Justice Warner said: "In view of the dependence of the people for travel, in the cities where street railroads have been......
-
Savannah, T. & I. of H. Ry. v. Williams
... ... companies as to others." Electric Ry. Co. v ... Carson, 98 Ga. 654, 27 S.E. 156; Augusta R. Co. v ... Renz, 55 Ga. 126, citing Civ. Code 1895, § 2321 ... Compare City Street Ry. v. Findley, 76 Ga. 311; ... Augusta R. Co. v. Randall, ... ...
-
Williams v. State
... ... of the opinion that our answer must be controlled by the same ... reasoning as used by this court in Augusta & Summerville ... Railroad Co. v. Renz, 55 Ga. 127 (4), 128, where Chief ... Justice Warner said: ... "In view of the dependence of the people for ... ...
-
Pattillo v. Mangum, 10156.
...that, though a cause of action may be defectively set forth, the defect is cured by the verdict. Augusta & Summerville R. Co. v. Renz, 55 Ga. 127. "A motion in arrest of judgment can be sustained only for defects appearing on the face of the pleadings which could not be cured by amendment a......