Southern Railway Co. v. Tiller

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Tiller

92 S.E. 1011, 20 Ga. App. 251, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 844

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1917

Docket8145

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 1011 (Southern Railway Co. v. Tiller) 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. Tiller, 92 S.E. 1011, 20 Ga. App. 251, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 844 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. Under the facts of this ease the switch-yard doctrine was inapplicable; the deceased was not a trespasser, but a licensee; a presumption of negligence was created upon proof of the killing by the running of the cars of the defendant company; the court did not err in admitting evidence as to a rule of the railroad company, intended primarily to safeguard employees, the existence of which illustrated, nevertheless, the negligent and dangerous character of the operation known as a “flying switch,” that caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband (the rule prohibiting “flying switches” where avoidable, and requiring that where unavoidable they shall be made with all the care necessary to prevent accident). Whether or not the deceased was in the exercise of ordinary care at the time of the injury by the cars was solely for determination by the jury.

2. There was no error in overruling the defendant’s demurrers, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

George and LuJce, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. Under the facts of this ease the switch-yard doctrine was inapplicable; the deceased was not a trespasser, but a licensee; a presumption of negligence was created upon proof of the killing by the running of the cars of the defendant company; the court did not err in admitting evidence as to a rule of the railroad company, intended primarily to safeguard employees, the existence of which illustrated, nevertheless, the negligent and dangerous character of the operation known as a “flying switch,” that caused the death of the plaintiff’s husband (the rule prohibiting “flying switches” where avoidable, and requiring that where unavoidable they shall be made with all the care necessary to prevent accident). Whether or not the deceased was in the exercise of ordinary care at the time of the injury by the cars was solely for determination by the jury.

2. There was no error in overruling the defendant’s demurrers, and the court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

George and LuJce, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 1011, 20 Ga. App. 251, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-tiller-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack