Dozier v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dozier v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

78 S.E. 469, 12 Ga. App. 753, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 739

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1913

Docket4702, 4703

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 469 (Dozier v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) 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

Dozier v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 78 S.E. 469, 12 Ga. App. 753, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 739 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries caused by the running of the defendant’s locomotive and ears. He alleged, that he was injured without any fault or negligence whatever on his part and solely by the negligence of the defendant; that he was injured at a public street-crossing by the negligent conduct of the defendant's employees in charge of the locomotive in approaching the crossing with-put ringing the bell or giving any other signal, and without cheeking speed in compliance with the statute, and in violation of a city ordinance limiting the speed of trains at public crossings in the city. Beld: The allegations of the petition- show a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly overruled. The allegations of the petition were substantially proved as laid, and the court erred in granting a nonsuit.

2. Where the statutory precautions enacted for the purpose of preventing injuries by the operation of railroad trains at public crossings are not complied with, and injury results from such non-compliance, a prima facie ease of liability is shown, from which the Offending company can be relieved only by proving that the injury was caused solely by the plaintiff’s own negligence, or that by the exercise of ordinary care he could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, or, in mitigation of damages, that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injury. Bryson v. Southern Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 407 (59 S. E. 1124); C. & W. C. Ry. Co. v. Camp, 3 Ga. App. 232 (59 S. E. 710).

Judgment on the main bill of exceptions reversed. Judgment on the cross-bill of exceptions affirmed.

Franlc C. 8hachelford, Horace M. Holden, for plaintiff. F. H. Saffold, for defendant.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The plaintiff sued for damages for personal injuries caused by the running of the defendant’s locomotive and ears. He alleged, that he was injured without any fault or negligence whatever on his part and solely by the negligence of the defendant; that he was injured at a public street-crossing by the negligent conduct of the defendant's employees in charge of the locomotive in approaching the crossing with-put ringing the bell or giving any other signal, and without cheeking speed in compliance with the statute, and in violation of a city ordinance limiting the speed of trains at public crossings in the city. Beld: The allegations of the petition- show a cause of action, and the demurrer was properly overruled. The allegations of the petition were substantially proved as laid, and the court erred in granting a nonsuit.

2. Where the statutory precautions enacted for the purpose of preventing injuries by the operation of railroad trains at public crossings are not complied with, and injury results from such non-compliance, a prima facie ease of liability is shown, from which the Offending company can be relieved only by proving that the injury was caused solely by the plaintiff’s own negligence, or that by the exercise of ordinary care he could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence, or, in mitigation of damages, that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injury. Bryson v. Southern Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 407 (59 S. E. 1124); C. & W. C. Ry. Co. v. Camp, 3 Ga. App. 232 (59 S. E. 710).

Judgment on the main bill of exceptions reversed. Judgment on the cross-bill of exceptions affirmed.

Franlc C. 8hachelford, Horace M. Holden, for plaintiff. F. H. Saffold, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 469, 12 Ga. App. 753, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dozier-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack