Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Waycross Electric Light & Power Co.

51 S.E. 621, 123 Ga. 613, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 557
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 2, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 51 S.E. 621 (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Waycross Electric Light & Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Waycross Electric Light & Power Co., 51 S.E. 621, 123 Ga. 613, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 557 (Ga. 1905).

Opinion

Candeek, J.

1. On the trial of an action against a railroad company for dam ages on account of the killing of stock, it. was error for the court, after charging that a presumption of negligence arose against the company upon proof .that the stock was killed by the running and operation of its train, to add: “but that presumption is subject to be'rebutted by evidence introduced by the railroad company showing that everything was done by its agents and servants which could have been done under the circumstances to avoid the killing or the injury.” The effect of this charge was to place upon the railroad company the burden of proving that its employees exercised the highest degree of care known to the law, whereas only ordinary care and diligence was required of them. Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. King, 70 Ga. 261; East Tennessee R. Co. v. Daniel, 91 Ga. 768; Savannah R. Co. v. Wideman, 99 Ga. 245.

2. In such a case, where the stock were not killed at a puííic crossing, it was also error to charge: “If you shall find that the agents and servants of defendant failed to blow the whistle and ring the bell of the locomotive, and shall further find that in such failure ordinary and reasonable care and diligence was not used, and that such failure proximately caused the death of the [stock], then, in,either of these events, you should find for the plaintiff.”

3. While it is permissible for a plaintiff corporation to amend its petition by alleging that since the institution of its suit its corporate name has been changed, and praying that the suit may proceed in its nev? name, it is incumbent upon it, in order to recover under the name as changed, to prove the allegations of its amendment upon the, trial of the case.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, C. J., absent.

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

Related

Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Underwood
126 S.E.2d 785 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1962)
Williams v. Baggs Auto Co.
122 S.E. 805 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. White
59 S.E. 898 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 S.E. 621, 123 Ga. 613, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-railroad-v-waycross-electric-light-power-co-ga-1905.