Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Pitts

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Pitts

145 S.E. 518, 38 Ga. App. 780, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 451

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1928

Docket18843

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 518 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Pitts) 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. Pitts, 145 S.E. 518, 38 Ga. App. 780, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

In a suit against a railroad company for the killing of live stock upon its track, the “physical facts and circumstances alone in the case may afford proof of the defendant’s negligence, and may be such as to raise an issue of credibility for determination by the jury, notwithstanding the defendant’s witnesses, to rebut the presumption of negligence, may have testified as to their exercise of ordinary care and that the casualty was unavoidable.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Paulk, 33 Ga. App. 293 (2) (125 S. E. 865). Furthermore, in the present case the jury could have found that the engineer was impeached by a contradictory statement previously made by him as to a matter relevant to his testimony and to the case. Columbus Railroad Co. v. Peddy, 120 Ga. 589 (2) (48 S. E. 149); Civil Code (1910), § 5881. It can not be held as a matter of law that the presumption of negligence was conclusively rebutted by the evidence.

The court did not err in the admission of testimony, nor fail to charge sufficiently on the measure of damages. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkvns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

In a suit against a railroad company for the killing of live stock upon its track, the “physical facts and circumstances alone in the case may afford proof of the defendant’s negligence, and may be such as to raise an issue of credibility for determination by the jury, notwithstanding the defendant’s witnesses, to rebut the presumption of negligence, may have testified as to their exercise of ordinary care and that the casualty was unavoidable.” Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Paulk, 33 Ga. App. 293 (2) (125 S. E. 865). Furthermore, in the present case the jury could have found that the engineer was impeached by a contradictory statement previously made by him as to a matter relevant to his testimony and to the case. Columbus Railroad Co. v. Peddy, 120 Ga. 589 (2) (48 S. E. 149); Civil Code (1910), § 5881. It can not be held as a matter of law that the presumption of negligence was conclusively rebutted by the evidence.

The court did not err in the admission of testimony, nor fail to charge sufficiently on the measure of damages. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkvns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 518, 38 Ga. App. 780, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-pitts-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack