Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Brown

75 S.E. 826, 11 Ga. App. 493, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 81

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 24, 1912

Docket3842

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 826 (Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Brown) 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

Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Brown, 75 S.E. 826, 11 Ga. App. 493, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 81 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

Two railway companies, hereinafter designated as company A and company B, were sued jointly for damages for personal injuries. The petition alleged substantially the following facts: The two companies maintain and operate a common railroad yard, through which two parallel tracks extend. Plaintiff was a flagman in the employment of company B, and while he was standing between the two tracks, giving signals to the engineer in charge of an engine of that company, an engine of the other company came along the parallel track adjoining the one upon which the engine of company B was moving, and he was struck by the running-board of company A’s engine and injured. The allegations of negligence are: that both companies were [494]*494negligent in maintaining the parallel tracks too near together, and that the servants in charge of the engine of company A were guilty of negligence in using one of the parallel tracks at the time when the adjoining track was being used by company B, and in failing to give the plaintiff any warning or signal of the approach of the engine of company A. There was no allegation that the servants of company B, in charge of its engine, knew of the approach of the engine of company A and failed to warn the plaintiff thereof. The petition was dismissed as to company A, and the general demurrer of company B was overruled. Held: (1) that even if it was negligence to maintain the tracks too close together, this was, relatively to company B, an assumed risk, and was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; (2) that no actionable negligence was alleged against company B; and, as to it, the petition should have been dismissed on general demurrer.

Decided September 24, 1912.

Action for damages; from city court of Richmond county— Judge W. F. Eve. October 29, 1911.

W. K. Miller, for plaintiff in error. Isaac S. Peebles Jr., C. H. & R. S. Cohen, J. C. C. Black, contra.

Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

Two railway companies, hereinafter designated as company A and company B, were sued jointly for damages for personal injuries. The petition alleged substantially the following facts: The two companies maintain and operate a common railroad yard, through which two parallel tracks extend. Plaintiff was a flagman in the employment of company B, and while he was standing between the two tracks, giving signals to the engineer in charge of an engine of that company, an engine of the other company came along the parallel track adjoining the one upon which the engine of company B was moving, and he was struck by the running-board of company A’s engine and injured. The allegations of negligence are: that both companies were [494]*494negligent in maintaining the parallel tracks too near together, and that the servants in charge of the engine of company A were guilty of negligence in using one of the parallel tracks at the time when the adjoining track was being used by company B, and in failing to give the plaintiff any warning or signal of the approach of the engine of company A. There was no allegation that the servants of company B, in charge of its engine, knew of the approach of the engine of company A and failed to warn the plaintiff thereof. The petition was dismissed as to company A, and the general demurrer of company B was overruled. Held: (1) that even if it was negligence to maintain the tracks too close together, this was, relatively to company B, an assumed risk, and was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; (2) that no actionable negligence was alleged against company B; and, as to it, the petition should have been dismissed on general demurrer.

Decided September 24, 1912.

Action for damages; from city court of Richmond county— Judge W. F. Eve. October 29, 1911.

W. K. Miller, for plaintiff in error. Isaac S. Peebles Jr., C. H. & R. S. Cohen, J. C. C. Black, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E. 826, 11 Ga. App. 493, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charleston-western-carolina-railway-co-v-brown-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack