Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Coleman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Coleman

92 S.E. 295, 19 Ga. App. 799, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 368

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 25, 1917

Docket8289

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 295 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Coleman) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 295, 19 Ga. App. 799, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-coleman-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack