Watson v. Ga. Pac. Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 12 October 1888
• Citation: 81 Ga. 476,7 S.E. 854
• Parties: Watson v. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

7 S.E. 854

(81 Ga. 476)

Watson

v.Georgia Pac. Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

October 12, 1888.

Carriers op Passengers—Injuries to Passengers—Alighting from Moving Train. A railroad company is not liable for injuries to a passenger sustained in attempting to alight from a moving train which had passed the passenger's destination without stopping.¹

Error from superior court, Fulton county; Marshall J. Clarke, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Watson against the Georgia Pacific Railway Company for personal injuries. The conductor of defendant's train on which plaintiff was a passenger promised to allow her to alight at the Simpson-Street crossing in Atlanta, but the train failed to stop there. When the train arrived at the depot, the conductor promised to carry plaintiff back to Simpson street, but when that point was reached the train again passed without stopping. After going some distance beyond, plaintiff attempted to alight while the train was moving about one mile an hour, and in doing so she fell, and sustained the injuries complained of. A nonsuit was awarded, and plaintiff brings error.

George T. Fry, J. G. Caldwell, J. C. Smith, and F. A. Arnold, for plaintiff in error. Hopkins & Glenn, for defendant in error.

Blandford, J. We think the court below was right in nonsuiting this case. If the railroad company was liable to the plaintiff for anything, it was liable to her for damages for the breach of promise to let her off at the Simpson-Street crossing. Whatever damages accrued to her by reason of the breach of that promise she might perhaps recover; but we do not decide whether she could or not. But she chose to bring her action for the injuries which she sustained, and we think her testimony clearly shows that she could have avoided the consequences to herself by the use of ordinary care. If she had just kept her seat in the car, she would not have been hurt. According to her testimony, she took the risk of getting off; and we think, as she took the risk, she must take the consequences. Her departure from the train, under the circumstances, showed no want of diligence on the part of the railroad company. Judgment affirmed.