Southern Railway Co. v. Reeves

Supreme Court of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Reeves

42 S.E. 1015, 116 Ga. 743, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 242

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by26 cases

This text of 42 S.E. 1015 (Southern Railway Co. v. Reeves) 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

Southern Railway Co. v. Reeves, 42 S.E. 1015, 116 Ga. 743, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 242 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

The principles stated in the headnotes seem to be (clearly deducible from the following decisions of this court: Central Railroad Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461 (3); Central Railroad Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770 (2); Daniels v. Railroad Co., 96 Ga. 786; Atlanta Consolidated St. R. Co. v. Bates, 103 Ga. 333 (2), 347; Wilkes v. Railroad Company, 109 Ga. 794. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize a finding that the plaintiff was injured while attempting to alight from one of the trains of the defendant, that this injury resulted from the fact that the step of the car was a long distance from the ground, which was soft, and that the stool used for the purpose of enabling her to alight was set upon ground which was soft, and when the plaintiff stepped upon the stool it overturned and threw her, causing injuries which, were painful and serious. The motion for a new trial complains that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and also that the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. When the ‘charge is taken as a whole, the extracts upon which error is assigned were not erroneous for any of the reasons set forth in the motion for a new trial, and the evidence authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.

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

Cobb, J.

The principles stated in the headnotes seem to be (clearly deducible from the following decisions of this court: Central Railroad Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461 (3); Central Railroad Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770 (2); Daniels v. Railroad Co., 96 Ga. 786; Atlanta Consolidated St. R. Co. v. Bates, 103 Ga. 333 (2), 347; Wilkes v. Railroad Company, 109 Ga. 794. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize a finding that the plaintiff was injured while attempting to alight from one of the trains of the defendant, that this injury resulted from the fact that the step of the car was a long distance from the ground, which was soft, and that the stool used for the purpose of enabling her to alight was set upon ground which was soft, and when the plaintiff stepped upon the stool it overturned and threw her, causing injuries which, were painful and serious. The motion for a new trial complains that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and also that the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. When the ‘charge is taken as a whole, the extracts upon which error is assigned were not erroneous for any of the reasons set forth in the motion for a new trial, and the evidence authorized the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 S.E. 1015, 116 Ga. 743, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-reeves-ga-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack