The Cent. R.R. And Banking Co. v. Grant
| Citation | 46 Ga. 418 |
| Parties | THE CENTRAL RAILROAD AND BANKING COMPANY, plaintiff in error. v. LEWIS GRANT, defendant in error. THE CENTRAL RAILROAD AND BANKING COMPANY, plaintiff in error. v. PATRICK O'HARA, defendant in error. |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1872 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Page 418*Railroads. Contractors. Liability to sub-contractors. Running of cars. Before Judge Cole. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1871.
Lewis Grant and Patrick O'Hara brought separate actions on the case against the Central Railroad and Banking Company for injuries sustained. The two cases were heard together in the Superior and Supreme Courts. The defendant pleaded not guilty.
It appeared from the evidence that plaintiffs were employed by a Mr. Names, as overseer of a gang of men; that plaintiffs were engaged in filling in an embankment with a dirt car when the accident happened; that the dirt car fell from a trestle; that the laborers had been working with a barrow, but were compelled to change to the dirt car, on account of it becoming necessary to go very far out on the trestle; that the trestle gave way and the car fell off, injuring plaintiffs severely; that the car, at the time of the injury, was being hauled by two mules, who walked on the ground below, being attached to the car by a long rope; that Mr. Wadley, the president, saw the trestle when it was being built; that Mr. Adams was the contractor for the work which was being done for defendant; that plaintiffs were paid by Names, and defendant had nothing to do with hiring them; that the dirt car, the mules, the driver and the trestle work belonged to the defendant; that the work was let out by the defendant to a contractor, the former agreeing to furnish track, trestle and motive power, except barrows; that defendant had no control over the mules, cars or men.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendant moved for a new trial upon the following grounds, to-wit:
1st. Because the Court erred in its charge to the jury, in this, that "if it was the contract that the defendant was to furnish to the contractors a safe and sufficient track, car and motive power to movethe dirt, and the accident resulted to plaintiff from an insecure, insufficient and unsafe track, car *or motive power, then the defendant is liable to the plaintiffs for the injuries sustained by them, if the injury was the result of furnishing unsafe track, car, " etc.
2d. Because the verdict of the jury was contrary to the following charge of the Court, "that if they should be satisfied, from the evi-dence, that Names, a contractor, agreed with the defendant to do the work on which plaintiffs were engaged when they received the injuries complained of, the defendant agreeing to furnish track, car and motive power for transferring the dirt by the contractors, and for this purpose furnished a car, mules and driver, with instructions to move the car by hard, and not to attach the mules until a brake was attached to the car, and the plaintiffs, with others, employees of the said contractor, in opposition to and in disobedience of the instructions of defendant\'s agent, attached mules to the car, for the purpose of hauling the dirt, before the brake was attached, and while so using the car, the plaintiffs were injured, and in consequence of such use, then plaintiffs * * * would not be entitled to recover."
3d. Because the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence.
The motion for a new trial was overruled by the Court and plaintiff in error excepted, and now assigns said ruling as error.
W. K. DcGraffenreid; Lyon & Irvin; Jackson, Lawton & Basinger, for p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zurich General Acc. & Liability Ins. Co. v. Lee
... ... contractor. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Grant, ... 46 Ga. 418. Nor would the fact that he was to make the ... ...