Atkinson v. Kennedy

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atkinson v. Kennedy

79 S.E. 84, 13 Ga. App. 273, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 119

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 25, 1913

Docket4833

StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 84 (Atkinson v. Kennedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atkinson v. Kennedy, 79 S.E. 84, 13 Ga. App. 273, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 119 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill C. J.

Where a train stops short of the station after the name of the station has been called, and a passenger, believing that the station has been reached, gets off in the darkness, and is injured by falling into a ditch or deep cut, whether the railroad company was negligent in not warning the passenger that the station had not been reached, and whether the passenger was negligent in alighting at the place where the train had stopped, without assuring himself that the station had been reached or that the place was safe, are questions of fact that should be submitted to the jury. Miller v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co., 93 Ga. 630 (21 S. E. 153); Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. Co. v. Mullen, 217 Ill. 203 ( 75 N. E. 474, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 115, 3 Ann. Cas. 1015). A petition alleging in substance the foregoing facts was not subject to demurrer. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hill C. J.

Where a train stops short of the station after the name of the station has been called, and a passenger, believing that the station has been reached, gets off in the darkness, and is injured by falling into a ditch or deep cut, whether the railroad company was negligent in not warning the passenger that the station had not been reached, and whether the passenger was negligent in alighting at the place where the train had stopped, without assuring himself that the station had been reached or that the place was safe, are questions of fact that should be submitted to the jury. Miller v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co., 93 Ga. 630 (21 S. E. 153); Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern R. Co. v. Mullen, 217 Ill. 203 ( 75 N. E. 474, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 115, 3 Ann. Cas. 1015). A petition alleging in substance the foregoing facts was not subject to demurrer. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 84, 13 Ga. App. 273, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-kennedy-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack