Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Young

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Young

93 S.E. 29, 20 Ga. App. 291, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 869

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 18, 1917

Docket8033

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 29 (Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Young) 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

Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Young, 93 S.E. 29, 20 Ga. App. 291, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 869 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. “One who makes an excavation upon his land is not bound to so guard it as to prevent injury to children who come upon it without his invitation, express or implied, but who are induced to do so merely by the alluring attractiveness of the excavation and its surroundings.” Savannah Railway Co. v. Beavers, 113 Ga. 398 (39 S. E. 82, 54 L. R. A. 314). See also O’Connor v. Brucker, 117 Ga. 452 (43 S. E. 731); Nashville Ry. Co. v. Priest, 117 Ga. 769 (45 S. E. 35); Southern Ry. Co. v. Chatman, 124 Ga. 1030 (53 S. E. 692, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 283, 4 Ann. Cas. 675). See generally, Harden v. Ga. R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 344 (59 S. E. 1122). Under the doctrine laid down in the above-cited eases, a railroad company having at a freight depot an ordinary heavy and' cumbersome two-wheel truck for handling freight, “beyond the strength of petitioner [a man] to handle with ease,” is not chargeable with the consequences arising from an attempt on the part of a child, approximately eight years old at the time, to push or wheel the truck around, notwithstanding his habit of playing around said depot was known to the employees of the railroad company, because of the failure of the railroad company to place the truck inside the depot building, during the absence of its agent in charge of the same, and to secure and lock the doors of the warehouse to prevent any interference with the truck by the child, on the theory that the company was negligent in leaving open, exposed, inseoure, and accessible to the child an attractive plaything which the company should have known, in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, would attract the child, to his injury and damage. Such a truck is not itself so palpably attractive as a plaything for children, and an implement or thing so dangerous in its [292]*292nature, as to come within the rule of the "turn-table cases,” and render a railroad company liable for leaving it accessible to the child. See, in this connection, Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Pierce, 145 Ga. 130 (88 S. E. 672). The-court erred in overruling tlie general demurrer to the petition alleging damages on the state of facts here indicated. What followed was therefore nugatory, and need not be considered.

Judgment reversed.

George and Luhe, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. “One who makes an excavation upon his land is not bound to so guard it as to prevent injury to children who come upon it without his invitation, express or implied, but who are induced to do so merely by the alluring attractiveness of the excavation and its surroundings.” Savannah Railway Co. v. Beavers, 113 Ga. 398 (39 S. E. 82, 54 L. R. A. 314). See also O’Connor v. Brucker, 117 Ga. 452 (43 S. E. 731); Nashville Ry. Co. v. Priest, 117 Ga. 769 (45 S. E. 35); Southern Ry. Co. v. Chatman, 124 Ga. 1030 (53 S. E. 692, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 283, 4 Ann. Cas. 675). See generally, Harden v. Ga. R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 344 (59 S. E. 1122). Under the doctrine laid down in the above-cited eases, a railroad company having at a freight depot an ordinary heavy and' cumbersome two-wheel truck for handling freight, “beyond the strength of petitioner [a man] to handle with ease,” is not chargeable with the consequences arising from an attempt on the part of a child, approximately eight years old at the time, to push or wheel the truck around, notwithstanding his habit of playing around said depot was known to the employees of the railroad company, because of the failure of the railroad company to place the truck inside the depot building, during the absence of its agent in charge of the same, and to secure and lock the doors of the warehouse to prevent any interference with the truck by the child, on the theory that the company was negligent in leaving open, exposed, inseoure, and accessible to the child an attractive plaything which the company should have known, in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, would attract the child, to his injury and damage. Such a truck is not itself so palpably attractive as a plaything for children, and an implement or thing so dangerous in its [292]*292nature, as to come within the rule of the "turn-table cases,” and render a railroad company liable for leaving it accessible to the child. See, in this connection, Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Pierce, 145 Ga. 130 (88 S. E. 672). The-court erred in overruling tlie general demurrer to the petition alleging damages on the state of facts here indicated. What followed was therefore nugatory, and need not be considered.

Judgment reversed.

George and Luhe, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 29, 20 Ga. App. 291, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaboard-air-line-railway-v-young-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack