Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Beavers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Beavers

110 S.E. 498, 28 Ga. App. 178, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 366

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 10, 1922

Docket12298

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E. 498 (Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Beavers) 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

Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Beavers, 110 S.E. 498, 28 Ga. App. 178, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 366 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The presumption of negligence arising against a railroad company upon proof of an injury, as provided in Civil Code (1910), § 2780, does not apply in the case of an injured employee unless it appears that he was himself in no wise connected with the transaction from which the injury flowed. See, in this connection, Port Royal & W. C. R. Co. v. Davis, 103 Ga. 579 (30 S. E. 262); Atkinson v. Swords, 11 Ga. App. 167 (74 S. E. 1093); Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co. v. Tompkins, 9 Ga. App. 154 (70. S. E. 955).

2. Where the plaintiff was injured as a result of a derailment of a train of cars of the defendant which the plaintiff was operating as engineer, it does not, in the absence of any proof as to the specific cause of the • derailment, appear that the action of the plaintiff in operating the train was not connected with the transaction from which the injury flowed.

3. The court erred in giving in charge section 2780 of the Civil Code (1910), and should have instructed the jury as to the law applicable to cases where an employee is injured in the service of a railroad company. See. in this connection, Civil Code (1910), § 27S2. It was therefore error to overrule the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur

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

Stephens, J.

1. The presumption of negligence arising against a railroad company upon proof of an injury, as provided in Civil Code (1910), § 2780, does not apply in the case of an injured employee unless it appears that he was himself in no wise connected with the transaction from which the injury flowed. See, in this connection, Port Royal & W. C. R. Co. v. Davis, 103 Ga. 579 (30 S. E. 262); Atkinson v. Swords, 11 Ga. App. 167 (74 S. E. 1093); Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co. v. Tompkins, 9 Ga. App. 154 (70. S. E. 955).

2. Where the plaintiff was injured as a result of a derailment of a train of cars of the defendant which the plaintiff was operating as engineer, it does not, in the absence of any proof as to the specific cause of the • derailment, appear that the action of the plaintiff in operating the train was not connected with the transaction from which the injury flowed.

3. The court erred in giving in charge section 2780 of the Civil Code (1910), and should have instructed the jury as to the law applicable to cases where an employee is injured in the service of a railroad company. See. in this connection, Civil Code (1910), § 27S2. It was therefore error to overrule the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 498, 28 Ga. App. 178, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocilla-southern-railroad-v-beavers-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack