The Ga. R.R. v. Rhodes

• Decision Date: 31 July 1876
• Citation: 56 Ga. 646
• Parties: The Georgia Railroad and Banking Company, plaintiff in error. v. Charles J. Rhodes, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

56 Ga. 646

The Georgia Railroad and Banking Company, plaintiff in error. v. Charles J. Rhodes, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1876.)

Railroads. Damages. Negligence. Presumption. Verdict. Before Judge Hopkins. DeKalb Superior Court. September Adjourned Term, 1875.

Reported in the decision.

Hillyer & Brother; Candler & Thomson, for plaintiff in error.

John A. Stephens; L. J. Glenn & Son, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant to recover damages for injury sustained by the alleged negligence and carelessness of the defendant's agents in running its railway trains on its road. On the trial of the case, the jury, under the charge of the court, found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $6,000 00. The defendant made a motion for a new trial on the several grounds alleged therein, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted.

It appears from the evidence in the record that the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as baggage master, and was on board of its train performing his duties in that capacity at the time of the alleged injury. The injury of plaintiff was caused by a collision of two passenger trains on the defendant's road, in consequence of its schedule being ambiguous, or because its agents did not understand it so as to regulate the running of its trains by it, to prevent a collision thereof. Theplaintiff being in the baggage car, and seeing that the two trains were not more than sixty to one hundred *yards apart, and that a collision was inevitable, jumped out of the car and broke his ankle badly, so as to render him a cripple for life. There is evidence in the record that Smith, the conductor, told the plaintiff not to jump, but the plaintiff states that he did not hear him; that there was a. passenger in the baggage car who remained there and was not hurt. The grounds for a new trial insisted on here were, that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, and was excessive. Because the court refused to give in charge the following requests: First. "That if it appear that at the time of the injury the plaintiff was acting in disobedience of a proper order of the conductor or person in charge of the train, to secure his, plaintiff\'s, safety, and it also appear that the injury was caused by such disobedience, he cannot recover." Second. "That an employee on a railroad train, serving for wages, takes upon himself the risks and dangers necessarily incident to the service; amongst these is the risk of his own mistakes or blunders." Third. "If the rules and schedules of a railroad company, calculated and provided for the purpose of running the trains with safety...