The Ga. R.R. & Banking Co v. Wall

• Decision Date: 31 October 1887
• Citation: 80 Ga. 202
• Parties: The Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. vs. Wall.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

80 Ga. 202

The Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. vs. Wall.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

OCTOBER TERM, 1887.

Railroads. Negligence. Presumptions. Verdict. Before Judge Jenkins. Baldwin superior court. July term, 1887.

Action for damages for killing a mule and disabling two others by defendant's train running through plaintiff'splantation. The evidence for the plaintiff was, in brief, as follows:

One morning, one of the mules was found with one of its legs cut off, from which injury it died. Another was injured in the hips and broken down. They seemed to have gotten on the track about 150 yards from where they were struck, and run that distance. The track there was on an embankment six or eight feet above level ground, and was straight. There was a crossing near the place. The third mule was hurt by having part of its hoof knocked off and one of its legs skinned. It was about two months before the latter two could be worked. The mules probably escaped from the lot where they were enclosed. It was a bright, moonlight night. There was no brakeman on the train except the fireman on the engine, and he was not on the lookout.

The defendant's evidence was, in brief, as follows: The train was running at the rate of about 16 miles an hour, about schedule time. When the engineer first saw the mules, they were about 40 yards ahead, and they ran about that much further before they were struck. The train was going down grade, and it would have taken about 200 yards to stop it. There was some fog at the time which prevented the mules from being seen before; as soon as they were seen, brakes were applied and efforts made to stop the train. When first seen, the mules were standing still. The whistle was blown. There was a good headlight. Nothing was omitted that could be done to prevent the injury. The embankment was gradual. The stock-law was of force in that district. There was some testimony tending to show that the plaintiff's lot fence was insufficient.

After verdict for the plaintiff, a new trial was moved for and refused, and the defendant excepted.

C. P. Crawford, for plaintiff in error.

Whitfield & Allen and J. H. Lumpkin, contra.

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

Wall brought an action against the railroad company for killing one mule and injuring two others by the running of a train. The case was fully made out, to the extent of casting upon the railway company the burden of explanation. The explanation which it attempted to make was by employes who were upon...