Williams v. Ala. Great Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 03 February 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 5544.)
• Citation: 84 S.E. 149,15 Ga.App. 652
• Parties: WILLIAMS. v. ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

84 S.E. 149

15 Ga.App. 652

WILLIAMS.

v.ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RY. CO.

(No. 5544.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 3, 1915.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by J. H. Williams against the Alabama Great Southern Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Hewlett, Dennis & Whitman, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

McDaniel & Black and E. A. Neely, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL, C. J. [1] 1. The negligence upon which the plaintiff predicates his claimfor damages is that the engine on which the plaintiff was working was not equipped with handholds for use by the fireman in going from his cab toward the front of his engine in order to light the headlight; that, in the absence of these handholds, there projected from the engine a certain piece of iron upon which was usually placed a light, the top of which was used by the defendant's servants as a handhold and as a means of moving around in front of the engine for the purpose of lighting the headlight, no handhold being furnished by the defendant upon the front of the engine; and that in using this pilot light to steady himself (as he went to return to the cab after lighting the light) the top thereof broke off, and he fell from the engine to the ground, and thereby sustained the injuries complained of. The evidence produced by the plaintiff fails to sustain the allegations of negligence set out in his petition. On the contrary, instead of proving that the defendant had failed to equip the engine with sufficient handholds for the firemen in performing their duty of lighting the headlight, or that the pilot light was intended to be used as a handhold by its employés, or that it was customary for them to use it, the plaintiff himself testified that he could not be sure whether the handholds ran clear around the engine as far as they ought to have gone or not. Conceding that it was the duty of the defendant to have supplied proper handholds, the testimony does not show that the lamp which the plaintiff seized to keep himself from falling was designed or supplied by the master to be used for that purpose, and the photograph of engine No. 215, which the plaintiff identified upon his cross-examination, and which is in the record, shows that a handhold runs practically around the entire path taken by the plaintiff at the time he fell. The plaintiff was not entitled to a recovery upon his testimony that:

"I don't remember any handholds on 215 going around and up over the top of the boiler. 1 remember that the handhold did start back at the cab going up towards the front. As to whether there was a handhold right below the lamp on the side of the engine, I will be frank, I...