Coleman v. Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad

40 S.E. 247, 114 Ga. 386, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 709
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 12, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 40 S.E. 247 (Coleman v. Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad) 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
Coleman v. Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad, 40 S.E. 247, 114 Ga. 386, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 709 (Ga. 1901).

Opinion

Cobb, J.

1. A railroad company is under no duty to a person unloading merchandise from a car on a side-track to a wagon, to which a horse is hitched, to comply with the requirements of the Civil Code, § 2224, respecting the giving of signals and checking the speed of the train before reaching a public crossing.

2. While under some circumstances a railroad company may be under a duty to warn a person, who is near its track by its permission, of the approach of a train, the failure to do so in the present case did not authorize a recovery, because it is manifest from the evidence that the omission to give such a warning was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. See Douglas v. Ry. Co., 88 Ga. 282.

3. Where the proximate cause of an injury received by a person from a plunging horse, which took fright at an approaching train, was the noise made by the emission of steam by the engine of the train, the railroad company will not be liable in damages, to the person so injured, unless it appears that the noise was “unusual and unnecessary ” at the time when and place where it was made. Hill v. Railroad Co., 101 Ga. 66, 68 (1), and cases cited ; Southern Ry. Co. v. Pool, 108 Ga. 808, and cases cited.

4. While in the present case the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that it was unusual to emit steam from the engine at the time when and the place where it was emitted, there was no evidence from which a jury could have inferred that the noise so made was unnecessary; and this being the only theory presented by the declaration upon which a recovery would have been warranted, there was no error in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring. . Hardeman, Davis, Turner & Jones, and Griner & Baldwin, for plaintiff. A. F. Daley, for defendant.

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

Related

Reid v. Southern Railway Co.
183 S.E. 849 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Gulf, M. N.R.R. Co. v. Hardy
117 So. 536 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)
Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Johnson
129 S.E. 891 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Parish
87 S.E. 1095 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Hutcheson v. Southern Railway Co.
68 S.E. 323 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Southern Railway Co. v. Chance
67 S.E. 836 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Southern Railway Co. v. Hogan
62 S.E. 64 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Chalkley v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
48 S.E. 194 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Black
40 S.E. 247 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 S.E. 247, 114 Ga. 386, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-wrightsville-tennille-railroad-ga-1901.