Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Reese

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Reese

158 S.E. 774, 43 Ga. App. 335, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 344

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1931

Docket21373

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 S.E. 774 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Reese) 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. Reese, 158 S.E. 774, 43 Ga. App. 335, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 344 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The two excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, when considered in the light of the charge as a whole and the facts of the case, show no error requiring the grant of a new trial.

2. The admission of the evidence set oitt in special grounds 3 and 4 of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.'

3 “It is a rule flowing from the common law, and recognized in this State, as well as in most of the other American States, that it is a duty of a steam-railroad company to exercise ordinary care and diligence in keeping its track and right of way free from combustible matter, whereby fl,re from its locomotives may be carried to adjacent property, and that an action will lie for negligence in this respect, although it may be shown that the engine from which the fire escaped was properly equipped and prudently handled. Georgia R. Co. v. Lawrence, 74 Ga. 534; Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 129 Ga. 367 (8) (58 S. E. 1044) ; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Tate, 129 Ga. 526 (2) (59 S. E. 266). The very fact that fire will sometimes escape from locomotives, though most carefully equipped and handled, makes it the dictate of prudence that the adjacent right of way should also be taken into consideration by the railway company, in the discharge of its duty of so using its own property as not to injure the property of others. See 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 466 et seq.” Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Davis, 5 Ga. App. 214 (2), 217 (62 S. E. 1022). Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was authorized, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The two excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the motion for a new trial, when considered in the light of the charge as a whole and the facts of the case, show no error requiring the grant of a new trial.

2. The admission of the evidence set oitt in special grounds 3 and 4 of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.'

3 “It is a rule flowing from the common law, and recognized in this State, as well as in most of the other American States, that it is a duty of a steam-railroad company to exercise ordinary care and diligence in keeping its track and right of way free from combustible matter, whereby fl,re from its locomotives may be carried to adjacent property, and that an action will lie for negligence in this respect, although it may be shown that the engine from which the fire escaped was properly equipped and prudently handled. Georgia R. Co. v. Lawrence, 74 Ga. 534; Southern Ry. Co. v. Thompson, 129 Ga. 367 (8) (58 S. E. 1044) ; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Tate, 129 Ga. 526 (2) (59 S. E. 266). The very fact that fire will sometimes escape from locomotives, though most carefully equipped and handled, makes it the dictate of prudence that the adjacent right of way should also be taken into consideration by the railway company, in the discharge of its duty of so using its own property as not to injure the property of others. See 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 466 et seq.” Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Davis, 5 Ga. App. 214 (2), 217 (62 S. E. 1022). Under this ruling and the facts of the instant case, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was authorized, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 774, 43 Ga. App. 335, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-reese-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack