Gordon v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gordon v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

95 S.E. 311, 21 Ga. App. 812, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 541

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 12, 1918

Docket8975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 311 (Gordon v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) 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

Gordon v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 95 S.E. 311, 21 Ga. App. 812, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Janie Gordon sued tlie railroad company, alleging, that when she was walking beside its tracks in a path used by pedestrians with its knowledge, she was struck by a train and injured; and that her injuries were due to the defendant’s negligence, “in running or backing its train at a high and dangerous rate of speed of fifteen miles per hour, at a point on its tracks -which it knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, was frequented and traversed by pedestrians; in failing to give petitioner warning of the approach of said train, when defendant company knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that petitioner was walking along the pathway beside said main-line track,” and “in failing to slacken the speed of said train, when it knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that petitioner was not -aware of the approach of said train.” The testimony of the plaintiff showed that the path ■ along the right of way of the railroad was constantly and daily used by pedestrians, that there was plenty of room for walking beside the track, and that the pathway did not go upon but was beside the track, and persons could and did use the path and were safe from trains passing over the track; that at the time she was struck her mind was absorbed in observing another train and two men riding on the top of the cars, which were on a track forty or more feet away, and she did not observe or hear the approach of the defendant’s train, and was struck by a step of one .of its coaches. Held: Even if the plaintiff was a licensee on the path beside the defendant’s track, the defendant was not bound to anticipate that she in a moment would move from the place of safety to a place where a step of a coach of the passing train would-strike her. Her own testimony was-such as to be conclusive that from no negligence upon the part of the defendant was she injured, but that her injury was due to her own lack of care. The court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Janie Gordon sued tlie railroad company, alleging, that when she was walking beside its tracks in a path used by pedestrians with its knowledge, she was struck by a train and injured; and that her injuries were due to the defendant’s negligence, “in running or backing its train at a high and dangerous rate of speed of fifteen miles per hour, at a point on its tracks -which it knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, was frequented and traversed by pedestrians; in failing to give petitioner warning of the approach of said train, when defendant company knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that petitioner was walking along the pathway beside said main-line track,” and “in failing to slacken the speed of said train, when it knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that petitioner was not -aware of the approach of said train.” The testimony of the plaintiff showed that the path ■ along the right of way of the railroad was constantly and daily used by pedestrians, that there was plenty of room for walking beside the track, and that the pathway did not go upon but was beside the track, and persons could and did use the path and were safe from trains passing over the track; that at the time she was struck her mind was absorbed in observing another train and two men riding on the top of the cars, which were on a track forty or more feet away, and she did not observe or hear the approach of the defendant’s train, and was struck by a step of one .of its coaches. Held: Even if the plaintiff was a licensee on the path beside the defendant’s track, the defendant was not bound to anticipate that she in a moment would move from the place of safety to a place where a step of a coach of the passing train would-strike her. Her own testimony was-such as to be conclusive that from no negligence upon the part of the defendant was she injured, but that her injury was due to her own lack of care. The court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 311, 21 Ga. App. 812, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-atlantic-coast-line-railroad-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack