The Cent. Ratlrd. & Banking Co. v. Dixon

• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Citation: 42 Ga. 327
• Parties: THE CENTRAL RATLROAD & BANKING COMPANY, plaintiff in error. v. JEREMIAH DIXON, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

42 Ga. 327

THE CENTRAL RATLROAD & BANKING COMPANY, plaintiff in error. v. JEREMIAH DIXON, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1871.)

Damages. Railroad Companies. Before Judge Robinson. Wilkinson. April Term, 1870.

Dixon brought case against said company for injuries done to him by running its car over him, etc. The evidence showed that, at Gordon, where the road from Milledgeville joins the road from Savannah, the train was standing in the usual place, after dark, taking wood and water. The public road was blocked up by the train, and the train also stood across the usual crossing for foot passengers. Dixon, wishing to cross the track, got under the train for that purpose; this he did twice; the second time the train suddenly moved, and inflicted said injuries upon him. As to whether the usual signal was given before moving, the evidence was conflicting. The train was moved to give way for the Milledgeville train coming in.

The Court read to the jury sections 2921, 2979 and 2980 of the Revised Code of Georgia, and that part of the opinion of this Court in the case of The Macon & Western Railroad Company v. Johnson, 38th Georgia Reports, as to said sections, and then charged them as follows: "A railroad company is liable for any damages done to persons by the running of the locomotives, cars or other machinery of such *company, or for damages done by any person in the employment and service of such company, unless the company shall make it appear that their agents have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, the presumption in all cases being against the company. No person shall recover damages from a railroad company for injury to himself or his property when the injury is done by his consent, or where the injury is caused by his own negligence. If the party plaintiff, and the agent of the company are both at fault, the plaintiff may recover, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the party complaining. Applying these general principles of law to this case, if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff has been damaged in his person by the Central Railroad Company, or any one in the employment of said company, in consequences of the failure of said company or its employees to have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence in the running of their cars at the time stated in plaintiff\'s writ, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover. But if the jury believe, from the evidence, that the Central Railroad Company or their employees did exercise all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence at the time the injury is alleged to have been done to the person of the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the Central Railroad Company were without fault on their part, and that the injury alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff was caused by his own negligence, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that plaintiff and defendant were both at fault, then plaintiff may recover, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the plaintiff. If the jury should believe, from the evidence, that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, it is for the jury to ascertain fromthe evidence what the amount of damages should be. Damages are given as compensation *for the injury done, and the injury done is generally the measure of damages, where the injury is of a character capable of being estimated in money. If the jury believe, from the evidence, that the injury alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff was not caused by his own negligence, but that it was caused by the failure of defendant to have exercised all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence, then the jury must endeavor to ascertain, from the evidence, the extent of the injury, and what would be a suitable compensation for the same in money, taking into consideration the expenses of medical treatment and...