Southern Railway Co. v. Powell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Powell

126 S.E. 913, 33 Ga. App. 538, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 576

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1925

Docket15691

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.E. 913 (Southern Railway Co. v. Powell) 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

Southern Railway Co. v. Powell, 126 S.E. 913, 33 Ga. App. 538, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 576 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

It appearing that the plaintiff’s intestate, who, while an employee of the defendant railroad, in the discharge of his duty, received injuries from a second explosion in the defendant’s freight-depot, where he was employed as a clerk, which occurred about ten or fifteen minutes after the explosion referred to in the case of Southern Railway Co. v. Eichelberger, ante, 532 (126 S. E. 912), and after.the plaintiff, in compliance with an order from an agent of the defendant, in general charge of the depot and the men working there, had gone back into the building for the purpose of rescuing some of the employees injured in the first explosion, and it being inferable that the second explosion was but a continuance of the first explosion, and that the first explosion was caused by the negligence of the defendant, in the manner in which certain explosives it had received for shipment were handled, a verdict for the plaintiff was authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkms, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

It appearing that the plaintiff’s intestate, who, while an employee of the defendant railroad, in the discharge of his duty, received injuries from a second explosion in the defendant’s freight-depot, where he was employed as a clerk, which occurred about ten or fifteen minutes after the explosion referred to in the case of Southern Railway Co. v. Eichelberger, ante, 532 (126 S. E. 912), and after.the plaintiff, in compliance with an order from an agent of the defendant, in general charge of the depot and the men working there, had gone back into the building for the purpose of rescuing some of the employees injured in the first explosion, and it being inferable that the second explosion was but a continuance of the first explosion, and that the first explosion was caused by the negligence of the defendant, in the manner in which certain explosives it had received for shipment were handled, a verdict for the plaintiff was authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkms, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 913, 33 Ga. App. 538, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-powell-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack