Gosnell v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gosnell v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

86 S.E. 90, 17 Ga. App. 67, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 260

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 10, 1915

Docket6135

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 86 S.E. 90 (Gosnell 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

Gosnell v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 86 S.E. 90, 17 Ga. App. 67, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 260 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

1. The petition alleged that the plaintiff “was attempting to get off of said train, and, before he had had a fair opportunity to do . so, said train suddenly started in motion, and your petitioner. was thrown from said train against the ground, a distance of thirty feet, and as a result your petitioner was internally injured,” etc. The proof „ did not show that the plaintiff was thrown from the train against , the ground by the sudden starting of the train, but, on the contrary, . showed that he voluntarily left the train and jumped to the ground [68]*68after tlié train was in motion, so that his injuries did not result from any jerk' or sudden movement of the train. There was a material . variance between the allegata and the probata.

Decided September 10, 1915.

Action for damages; from city court of Madison — Judge Anderson. October 15, 1914.

J. 8'. Grant, Williford & Lambert, for plaintiff. Harris & Harris, Middlebroolcs & Burruss, for defendant.

2. In ease of a jerk or sudden start by which one alighting from a train is thrown to the ground, it will be presumed that there was a negligent act in the operation of the train; and where one alights from a mov- ■ ing train by the order of the conductor, the consequences chargeable to the conduct of the conductor, will be imputed to the company itself. In this case there was no negligent act in the operation of the train, and there was no negligent order on tlie part of the conductor to the plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff to fall or induced him to assume the obvious risk of alighting from a moving train, but he voluntarily undertook the risk himself.

4. Conceding that the demurrer to the petition was properly overruled, the evidence made a different case from that laid in the petition, and the court below did not err in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wade, J.

1. The petition alleged that the plaintiff “was attempting to get off of said train, and, before he had had a fair opportunity to do . so, said train suddenly started in motion, and your petitioner. was thrown from said train against the ground, a distance of thirty feet, and as a result your petitioner was internally injured,” etc. The proof „ did not show that the plaintiff was thrown from the train against , the ground by the sudden starting of the train, but, on the contrary, . showed that he voluntarily left the train and jumped to the ground [68]*68after tlié train was in motion, so that his injuries did not result from any jerk' or sudden movement of the train. There was a material . variance between the allegata and the probata.

Decided September 10, 1915.

Action for damages; from city court of Madison — Judge Anderson. October 15, 1914.

J. 8'. Grant, Williford & Lambert, for plaintiff. Harris & Harris, Middlebroolcs & Burruss, for defendant.

2. In ease of a jerk or sudden start by which one alighting from a train is thrown to the ground, it will be presumed that there was a negligent act in the operation of the train; and where one alights from a mov- ■ ing train by the order of the conductor, the consequences chargeable to the conduct of the conductor, will be imputed to the company itself. In this case there was no negligent act in the operation of the train, and there was no negligent order on tlie part of the conductor to the plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff to fall or induced him to assume the obvious risk of alighting from a moving train, but he voluntarily undertook the risk himself.

4. Conceding that the demurrer to the petition was properly overruled, the evidence made a different case from that laid in the petition, and the court below did not err in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 90, 17 Ga. App. 67, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gosnell-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack