The Cent. R.R. v. Richards
| Decision Date | 28 February 1879 |
| Citation | 62 Ga. 306 |
| Parties | The Central Railroad. v. Richards. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Evidence. Practice in the Superior Court. Verdict. Before Judge Hall. Henry Superior Court. October Term, 1873.
To the report contained in the opinion it is only necessary toadd the following: The witness (Morris) whose testimony *was objected to, stated that his business was that of a life insurance agent; that he was acquainted with it sufficiently to conduct it, though he would not consider himself an expert; that he knew the tables used by insurance companies to estimate probable length of life. (He then described them and attached copies to his answers.)
A. R. Lawton; Speer & Stewart, for plaintiff in error, cited (on admission of evidence) Code, 3868; 10 Ga., 513; 28 lb., 237; Code, sec. 2770; 22 Ga., 403.
Beck & Beeks, for defendant.
This was a suit brought by an engineer on a freight train belonging to the Central Railroad and Banking Company against said company, for damages to his person by being thrown from the engine while running the train, by reason of defects in the road-track.
The jury found for the plaintiff $3,000.00, and the defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was overruled, and he excepted.
1. The points made in the motion are three. First, it is objected that the court erred in admitting the testimony of an insurance agent touching life-tables and admitting the tables on his evidence. The ground of objection urged before us is that the agent was not an expert; but it appears that he was expert enough to have been employed for years about the business of life-insurance and to know what tables were used, and we see nothing wrong in admitting the evidence.
2. The next objection is that the court erred in declining to charge the jury that, "though the engineer may run faster one mile than another, yet at no point on the line would he be allowed to run over the schedule time without violating his orders, and if he did so, and an injury resulted to him, hecould not recover."
*The court refers to its general charge, which, upon this point, is to the effect that the engineer may go over regular schedule time, if he keeps within the limit prescribed by his instructions when behind time. That is, that if the regular time be fifteen miles an hour, and he is behind schedule time, and his instructions allow him to increase speed so many miles more—up to eighteen miles, say—and he keeps within that limit, he is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Louisville, N.A.&C. Ry. Co. v. Miller
...v. Railroad Co., 41 Iowa, 71; Railroad Co. v. Crosby, 74 Ga. 737;McKeigue v. City of Janesville, 68 Wis. 50, 31 N. W. 298; Railroad Co. v. Richards, 62 Ga. 306. In Iowa it has been held that the Encyclopedia Britannica, containing the Carlisle Life Tables, may be introduced in evidence in a......
-
The Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Miller
......180; Elliott v. Van Buren, 33. Mich. 49, 20 Am. Rep. 668; Brown v. New York. Cent. R. R. Co., 32 N.Y. 597; Matteson v. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 35 N.Y. 487;. Johnson v. ... City of. Janesville, 68 Wis. 50, 31 N.W. 298; Central R. R. Co. v. Richards, 62 Ga. 306. . . In Iowa. it has been held that the "Encyclopaedia. ......
-
Mealey v. Slaton Machinery Sales, Inc.
...... The tables were admissible, Central Railroad Co. v. Richards, 62 Ga. 306; Pierce v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & Ry. Co., 173 U.S. 1, 19 S.Ct. 335, 43 L.Ed. 591, and ......
-
Vicksburg v. Putnam
...W. Ry., L. R. 8 Exch. 221; Sauter v. New York Cent. R. R., 66 N. Y. 50; McDonald v. Chicago & N. W. R. R., 26 Iowa, 124, 140; Central R. R. v. Richards, 62 Ga. 306. But it has never been held that the rules to be derived from such tables or computations must be the absolute guides of the ju......