Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Coleman

92 S.E. 295, 19 Ga. App. 799, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 368
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 25, 1917·No. 8289·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. A railroad company is bound to exercise ordinary care and diligence to prevent communication of sparks from its locomotives. An instruction that a railroad company is required to equip its engines with “up-to-date and standard spark-arresters” is erroneous; the true rule being that the railroad company is to use ordinary care and diligence to apply to its engines the best appliances in general use, the use of which is consistent with the practicable operation of its engines, and to use reasonable care’ and skill in keeping the same in good order. Southern Railway Co. v. Thompson, 129 Ga. 367 (58 S. E. 1044) ; Albany & Northern Ry. Co. v. Wheeler, 3 Ga. App. 414 (59 S. E. 1116); Gainesville Railroad Co. v. Edmondson, 101 Ga. 747 (29 S. E. 213).

2. The evidence for the plaintiff was weak, and the error in the charge of the court tended to mislead the jury. The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, O. J., and George, J., concur.

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

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Coleman, 92 S.E. 295, 19 Ga. App. 799, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 368 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

92 S.E. 295 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Coleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rott v. Provident Life Insurance
286 N.W. 393 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1939)