Western & A.R. Co. v. Earwood

• Decision Date: 12 April 1898
• Parties: WESTERN & A. R. CO. v. EARWOOD.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

29 S.E. 913

104 Ga. 127

WESTERN & A. R. CO. v. EARWOOD.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 12, 1898

Syllabus by the Court.

A voluntary promise by a conductor to aid a passenger in getting off a railroad car at a certain station does not impose upon the company any liability for a failure of the conductor, after reaching such station, to enter the car and assist the passenger from her seat to the place of exit from such car, where it does not appear that the conductor had any notice of any condition or circumstances of the passenger that would render such assistance necessary.

Error from superior court, Gordon county; A. W. Fite, Judge.

Action by Margaret Earwood against the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Payne & Tye, O. N. Starr, and R. J. & J. McCamy, for plaintiff in error.

W. R Rankin and W. H. Dabney, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS C.J.

"It is undoubtedly the duty of a railway company to provide suitable and safe means for entering and alighting from its trains. But having done this, and having stopped its train in proper position to enable passengers to avail themselves of those means in entering or alighting, it is not bound to render them personal assistance. The contract of the carrier is that he will carry the passenger safely, and in a proper carriage, and afford him convenient and safe means for entering and alighting from the vehicle in which he carries him; but he does not contract to render him personal service or attention, beyond that." In the argument here, this rule was not disputed by the defendant in error, but it was insisted that the facts of the case showed that it was not applicable, because the conductor promised the husband of the defendant in error that when she had arrived at her destination he would "help [her] off" of the train. It was insisted that this was a contract or promise on the part of the company which would bind it in case the conductor failed or refused to comply with it. We think that, under the facts disclosed by the record, it was nothing more than a mere voluntary promise by the conductor, and that it did not bind the company, so as to subject it to damages upon the conductor's failure to comply with it. Nunn v Railroad Co., 71 Ga. 710; Daniels v. Railroad Co., 96 Ga. 786, 22 S.E. 956. It will be observed, by reading the evidence of the husband and that of the wife that they merely requested the conductor to assist the wife in alighting from the train. This, as an act of courtesy, he promised to do. Nowhere in the record is it shown or alleged that any particular reason was given the conductor why the wife needed assistance. He was not informed, and testifies that he did not know,...