Rubnitz v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rubnitz v. Davis

113 S.E. 703, 29 Ga. App. 102, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 86

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 26, 1922

Docket12894

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.E. 703 (Rubnitz v. Davis) 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

Rubnitz v. Davis, 113 S.E. 703, 29 Ga. App. 102, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 86 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

In a suit against á railroad company for damages for personal injuries, where it is alleged that the plaintiff was injured as a result of wanton negligence on the part of the defendant in backing a train into standing ears upon a track across which the plaintiff was passing, beyond the far end of the cars, after the plaintiff’s perilous position in crossing the track at such place had become known to the defendant, evidence which proves the injury as alleged and authorizes the inference that a servant of the railroad company, having the right to direct the movements of the train, actually knew of the plaintiff’s presence in the switch-yard and had directed the plaintiff to proceed between the railroad tracks and to cross over the track upon which the cars that ran over the plaintiff were standing, is sufficient, in the absence of any disproof of the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence, to support the plaintiff’s case as laid in the petition; and a nonsuit was improperly granted. The presence of the plaintiff in the switch-yard under these circumstances was sufficient to authorize the inference that he was in a perilous situation, and therefore actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s presence upon a particular track in the switch-yard was not essential to the plaintiff’s right to recover.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhms, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Oliver & Oliver, Aaron Kravitch, for plaintiff. H. W. Johnson, for defendant.

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

Stephens, J.

In a suit against á railroad company for damages for personal injuries, where it is alleged that the plaintiff was injured as a result of wanton negligence on the part of the defendant in backing a train into standing ears upon a track across which the plaintiff was passing, beyond the far end of the cars, after the plaintiff’s perilous position in crossing the track at such place had become known to the defendant, evidence which proves the injury as alleged and authorizes the inference that a servant of the railroad company, having the right to direct the movements of the train, actually knew of the plaintiff’s presence in the switch-yard and had directed the plaintiff to proceed between the railroad tracks and to cross over the track upon which the cars that ran over the plaintiff were standing, is sufficient, in the absence of any disproof of the plaintiff’s allegations of negligence, to support the plaintiff’s case as laid in the petition; and a nonsuit was improperly granted. The presence of the plaintiff in the switch-yard under these circumstances was sufficient to authorize the inference that he was in a perilous situation, and therefore actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s presence upon a particular track in the switch-yard was not essential to the plaintiff’s right to recover.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhms, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Oliver & Oliver, Aaron Kravitch, for plaintiff. H. W. Johnson, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 703, 29 Ga. App. 102, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubnitz-v-davis-gactapp-1922.