Wall v. Southern Ry. Co., A90A0646
Decision Date | 03 July 1990 |
Docket Number | No. A90A0646,A90A0646 |
Citation | 196 Ga.App. 483,396 S.E.2d 266 |
Parties | WALL v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
James E. Thompson, Tucker, for appellant.
Neely & Player, Edgar A. Neely III, Tami L. Brown, Atlanta, for appellee.
While crossing two parallel railroad tracks at their intersection with a city street, appellant-plaintiff was struck by one of appellee-defendant's trains. Seeking to recover for the injuries that he suffered, appellant brought this negligence action against appellee. He appeals from the trial court's grant of appellee's motion for summary judgment.
1. Construed most favorably to appellant, the record reveals the following: When appellant approached the railroad crossing, one of appellee's trains was stopped so that its caboose blocked half of the crossing. After waiting one-half hour, appellant followed two other pedestrians around the caboose of the stationary train and was struck by another of appellee's trains that was traveling on the parallel track. Appellant's view of the moving train was obstructed by the stationary train. Although there were no "guards down" at the intersection, appellee presented unrebutted evidence that the crossing was equipped with other warning devices which were operational during the time in question. Moreover, the lights, bells and whistle on the moving train were in operation and the train was proceeding very slowly, eight to ten miles per hour. The railroad signal for the moving train was green.
[Cit.] In view of showing of ordinary care, it was up to [appellant] to show by the evidence that there remains a genuine issue for trial. Houston v. Ga. Northeastern R. Co., 193 Ga.App. 687, 688, 388 S.E.2d 762 (1989).
Appellee contends that "[t]he mere act of stopping railroad cars on a crossing for such a length of time as might be reasonably necessary in the conduct of the railroad's business would not constitute negligence on the part of [appellee]." (Emphasis in original.) Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Marshall, 89 Ga.App. 740, 743(2), 81 S.E.2d 228 (1954). There is, however, evidence in the instant case other than appellee's mere act of stopping one of its trains on a crossing. There is also evidence of the obstruction of appellant's vision by one of appellant's trains that was partially blocking a two-track crossing for a half-hour. ... (Emphasis in original.) Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Davis, 116 Ga.App. 831, 835-36(1b), 159 S.E.2d 134 (1967). See also Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Clark, 93 Ga.App. 278, 91 S.E.2d 386 (1956).
Moreover, "the mere presence of safety precautions such as automatic signalling devices [neither] renders the railroad free from negligence as a matter of law, [n]or relieves it from adopting such other measures as public safety and common prudence dictate." Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. West, 155 Ga.App. 391, 392(1), 271 S.E.2d 36 (1980). See also Isom v. Schettino, 129 Ga.App. 73, 75(1), 199 S.E.2d 89 (1973). This would be especially true where, as here, the automatic signalling devices were in operation for a half-hour due to the presence of a stationary train which otherwise obstructed appellant's view of the moving train on the parallel track. Cf. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. West, supra 155 Ga.App. at 392(1), 271 S.E.2d 36. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Assoc. Transports, 94 Ga.App. 563, 566(3), 95 S.E.2d 755 (1956). The failure to employ additional precautions " " Southern R. Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 188 Ga.App. 623, 624(5), 373 S.E.2d 774 (1988).
2. Appellee further contends that, even if it were negligent, appellant failed to exercise ordinary care for his own safety as a matter of law and, thus, appellant is barred from any recovery. See OCGA § 46-8-291....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johns v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...company's negligence "whenever a person is injured on a railroad track by the running of locomotives...." Wall v. Southern R.R. Co. , 196 Ga.App. 483, 484, 396 S.E.2d 266 (1990). "The presumption disappears, however, when the railroad company introduces evidence showing the exercise of reas......
-
Crockett v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co.
...peculiarly for the jury, the court will decline to solve them ... except in plain and indisputable cases." Wall v. Southern R.R. Co., 196 Ga.App. 483, 485, 396 S.E.2d 266 (1990) (citations omitted). "Where the evidence does not disclose ... whether or not the injured person failed to look o......
-
Evans Timber Co. v. Central of Ga. R. Co.
...adequate warning signals. See Southern R. Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 188 Ga.App. 623(5), 373 S.E.2d 774 (1988); Wall v. Southern R. Co., 196 Ga.App. 483, 396 S.E.2d 266 (1990); Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Markert, 200 Ga.App. 851(4), 410 S.E.2d 437 (1991). However, the Supreme Court's decision in K......
-
Csx Transp. v. Trism Specialized Carriers
...devices at railroad crossings. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Markert, 200 Ga.App. 851, 410 S.E.2d 437 (1991); Wall v. Southern Ry. Co., 196 Ga.App. 483, 396 S.E.2d 266 (1990); Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co., 188 Ga. App. 623, 373 S.E.2d 774 In Southern Ry. Co. v. Georgia Kraft Co., t......
-
A Better Orientation for Jury Instructions - Charles M. Cork, Iii
...that credibility is exclusively for the jury); James v. State, 180 Ga. App. 7, 9-10, 348 S.E.2d 502, 505 (1986). 245. Wall v. S. R.R., 196 Ga. App. 483, 483-85, 396 S.E.2d 266, 266-67 (1990); Houston v. Ga. Northeastern R.R., 193 Ga. App. 687, 688, 388 S.E.2d 762, 763 (1989); S. R.R. v. Jam......