Williams v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 08 April 1903
• Citation: 117 Ga. 830,43 S.E. 980
• Parties: WILLIAMS. v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

43 S.E. 980

117 Ga. 830

WILLIAMS.

v.CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 8, 1903.

CARRIERS — SHIPMENT OF LIVE STOCK — ACTION FOR DAMAGES.

1. A shipper of live stock entered into a special contract with the carrier, and, in consideration of a reduced freight rate and free passage of the shipper, agreed to release the carrier from any loss that might be occasioned by the animals injuring each other or themselves, or that might arise in consequence of their fright or viciousness. The contract recited that the shipper had examined the car provided for the transportation of the stock and found it in good order and condition, and stipulated that he accepted the same, and agreed that it was suitable and sufficient for the purpose intended. Held, upon the trial of an action brought by the shipper against the carrier for damages for the value of one of the animals alleged in the petition to have died from injuries caused by a defect in the car, consisting of a crack therein in which the animal got its foot, the burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to show that such defect was not patent when he examined the car, and was therefore not covered by his agreement.

2. Such burden was not carried by showing merely that the crack into which the animal got its foot was the space between the slats of the car, some 3 1/2 or 4 feet above the floor thereof.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Houston County; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.

Action by O. D. Williams against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

H. A. Mathews and A. C. Riley, for plaintiff in error.

L. L. Brown, for defendant in error.

FISH, J. Williams sued the Central of Georgia Railway Company for damages for the loss of a mule. The petition alleged that the death of the mule was caused by the negligence of the defendant; that the injury from which its death resulted was occasioned by a defect in the car in which it was being transported from Atlanta to Fort Valley, "the defect consisting in a crack in the car in which the mule got his foot fastened."

Upon the trial the plaintiff put in evidence a written contract, signed by himself and the agent of the defendant, wherein the plaintiff agreed, in consideration of a reduced freight rate for the car load of live stock, and free passage of himself over the defendant's road from Atlanta to Fort Valley, that he would release the defendant from anyloss occasioned by the...