Sims v. Western & Atlantic Railroad

Supreme Court of Georgia

Sims v. Western & Atlantic Railroad

35 S.E. 696, 111 Ga. 820, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 754

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 9, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 35 S.E. 696 (Sims v. Western & Atlantic Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sims v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 35 S.E. 696, 111 Ga. 820, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 754 (Ga. 1900).

Pincite

Opinions

Fish, J.

1. As the evidence would have authorized the jury to find that plaintiff’s husband was killed by the running and operation of defendant’s train of cars, thereby, under the statute, raising a presumption of negligence on the part of the railroad company, and as there was no evidence to rebut such a presumption, or to show that plaintiff’s husband, by the use of ordinary care, could have avoided the casualty, a nonsuit should not have been granted. Civil Code, $2321. See Western & Atlantic R. R. v. Steadly, 65 Ga. 263; Georgia Railroad v. Bird, 76 Ga. 13; Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Phillips, 78 Ga. 619; Central R. & B. Co. v. Bryant, 89 Ga. 457 (2); Strom v. Ga. R. Co., 108 Ga. 758.

2. In an action against a railroad company for a homicide, alleged to have' been caused by the negligent running of its locomotive and cars, there was no error in overruling a demurrer to the petition on the ground that it did not allege what particular train, car, engine, or machinery of the defendant company struck and knocked the decedent from its track, or in what direction, north or south, the train was running, or at what hour the casualty occurred, or “specify the particular acts of carelessness and negligence of defendant, and how and in what manner its locomotive, cars, and machinery was negligent and careless. ”

Judgment, on main bill of exceptions, reversed; on cross-bill, affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except

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

Fish, J.

1. As the evidence would have authorized the jury to find that plaintiff’s husband was killed by the running and operation of defendant’s train of cars, thereby, under the statute, raising a presumption of negligence on the part of the railroad company, and as there was no evidence to rebut such a presumption, or to show that plaintiff’s husband, by the use of ordinary care, could have avoided the casualty, a nonsuit should not have been granted. Civil Code, $2321. See Western & Atlantic R. R. v. Steadly, 65 Ga. 263; Georgia Railroad v. Bird, 76 Ga. 13; Georgia R. & B. Co. v. Phillips, 78 Ga. 619; Central R. & B. Co. v. Bryant, 89 Ga. 457 (2); Strom v. Ga. R. Co., 108 Ga. 758.

2. In an action against a railroad company for a homicide, alleged to have' been caused by the negligent running of its locomotive and cars, there was no error in overruling a demurrer to the petition on the ground that it did not allege what particular train, car, engine, or machinery of the defendant company struck and knocked the decedent from its track, or in what direction, north or south, the train was running, or at what hour the casualty occurred, or “specify the particular acts of carelessness and negligence of defendant, and how and in what manner its locomotive, cars, and machinery was negligent and careless. ”

Judgment, on main bill of exceptions, reversed; on cross-bill, affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.E. 696, 111 Ga. 820, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-western-atlantic-railroad-ga-1900.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack