Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Perry

58 Ga. 461
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1877
StatusPublished
Cited by29 cases

This text of 58 Ga. 461 (Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Perry) 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
Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461 (Ga. 1877).

Opinion

Bleckley, Judge.

1. The judge’s certificate to the bill of exceptions is sufficient when it is the same, in substance, as that laid down in the Code. It need not be in the same words. Thus, if instead of declaring that the bill of exceptions “ is true, and contains all the evidence material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of,” it declares that the bill of exceptions “ is true, and contains everything necessary to a clear understanding of the errors complained of,” it will be free from any valid objection. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is, therefore, denied — Code, §6.

2. When a person has purchased his ticket and arrived at the point of departure, though he has not entered the cars, he is a passenger, and while waiting for the train to set out, he is, as to all duties of the company towards him directly involving his safety, entitled to extraordinary diligence, and as to all duties involving merely his convenience or accommodation, to ordinary diligence.

3. If the carrier has used all proper diligence in providing a suitable place for passengers to enter the cars, and has given full and fair opportunity to enter the ears at that place, a passenger who has declined to enter until the last moment, is entitled only to usual and ordinary diligence in keeping him from being left. The rule of extraordinary [468]*468diligence applies only to the receiving, keeping, carrying and discharging of passengers. It does not apply to the precautions to be taken against leaving them if they are unnecessarily late in taking their places, after full and fair opportunity has been afforded them to do so. Such precautions are for the convenience or accommodation of passengers, rather than for their -safety — Code, section 2067.

4. Relatively to passengers who have needlessly lingered about the depot and neglected to board the train, the object of giving signals is to keep them from being left. The company, in giving signals to them for that purpose, is bound only to usual and ordinary diligence; and such passengers are themselves bound to exercise ordinary care and attention in looking or listening for and observing the signals. Passengers who trust to signals to avoid being left, have a right to do so, but they are to be understood as trusting to such as are made in like circumstances, and on like occasions, in the exercise of ordinary diligence. What are such signals, •and by what means they should be made, and with what degree of distinctness, or loudness, are questions for the jury, under the evidence, and not for the court.

5. It is for the jury to say whether the danger of pursuing and boarding a train, when in motion, was, nnder the circumstances, so apparent as to make it the duty of the passenger not to undertake it, or to desist from the attempt before he was injured. Ordinarily, a railroad company has a right to expect that passengers will get on and off at the places provided for them, and there only. It cannot be stated as a proposition of law, that it is a duty to keep the track clear for pursuers, or that a passenger has a right to chase a flying train. As a general rule, on the contrary, no such duty or right exists; and, for the sake of the public, as well as of the company, it is better they should not exist.

6. A railroad company which allows the trains of another chartered company to use its depot, and run over a short section of its track for approaching and leaving the depot, must protect its own passengers who are themselves not [469]*469out of place, against injury from the trains of such other company. But if a passenger, by reason of his own want of promptitude in boarding a train, be out of his proper place when so injured, the company, whose passenger he is, is not liable for any negligence which is exclusively the negligence of the other company. Both companies being chartered, the depot and track of either, when used in common at the point of connection, may be considered the depot and track of each, relatively to its own operations and business. The case is not like that in 49 Ga., 355.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

DeMOTT v. OLD TOWN TROLLEY TOURS OF SAVANNAH, INC.
760 S.E.2d 703 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2014)
Walker v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
487 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1997)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Roberts
95 S.E.2d 693 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Newsome
83 S.E.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Millirons
73 S.E.2d 598 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Metts v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
182 S.E. 531 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Matthews v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
169 S.E. 41 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Watts v. Colonial Stages Co.
163 S.E. 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Atlanta Terminal Co. v. Alexander
143 S.E. 905 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Nashville, Chattanooga & Saint Louis Railway v. Mooneyham
139 S.E. 589 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Brewton
99 S.E. 226 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Fenlon v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
169 P. 863 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Nash v. Savannah Electric Co.
91 S.E. 240 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Georgia & Florida Railway Co. v. Tapley
87 S.E. 473 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Southern Railway Co. v. Nichols
68 S.E. 789 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Riley v. Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad
65 S.E. 890 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1909)
Dieckmann v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
121 N.W. 676 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1909)
Devane v. Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railroad
60 S.E. 1079 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Southern Railway Co. v. Rosenheim & Sons
58 S.E. 81 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Cole
57 S.E. 1026 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 Ga. 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-railroad-banking-co-v-perry-ga-1877.