White v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

Court of Appeals of Georgia

White v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

240 S.E.2d 203, 143 Ga. App. 821, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2520

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1977

Docket53916

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 S.E.2d 203 (White v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad) 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

White v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, 240 S.E.2d 203, 143 Ga. App. 821, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

Smith, Judge.

White, the appellant, brought this action seeking recovery for the death of her husband, who was killed when a Seaboard Coast Line train collided with his truck. A jury verdict was returned in the appellee’s favor, and White appeals the judgment entered on that verdict, contending there were errors in evidentiary rulings and in the charge. We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment.

1. As the decedent’s truck approached a railroad crossing in Ambrose, Georgia, warning lights and bells indicated an approaching train. The view between the train and the truck was obstructed by railroad tank cars parked on a side track. One truck pulled up to and traversed the crossing a few seconds before the decedent attempted to. The decedent approached slowly, stopped or nearly stopped, then pulled onto the track and was broadsided by the train. The appellant attempted to introduce testimony concerning prior malfunctions of the warning devices at this crossing, purportedly to show that the devices occasionally became activated although no train was coming. If this was true, and if it was commonly known, then an inference might be raised in the minds of the jury that the decedent thought there was no train coming as he pulled onto the track. Such an inference is relevant to determining the amount, if any, of the decedent’s negligence; the testimony was therefore admissible. Steiner v. Melvin, 143 Ga. App. 97 (1977).

However, at the time the testimony was excluded the trial court was not informed what the witness would have answered, and how that answer would have been material and would have benefited the appellant. The exclusion of admissible testimony does not constitute reversible error [822]*822unless the trial court is apprised of these factors. Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (43 SE 712) (1903).

Argued May 3, 1977 Decided November 10, 1977. Edwin M. Saginar, for appellant. Jay, Garden, Sherrell & Smith, Clayton Jay, Jr., for appellees.

2. The remaining objections to evidentiary rulings and the charge are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., concurs. McMurray, J., concurs specially.

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

Smith, Judge.

White, the appellant, brought this action seeking recovery for the death of her husband, who was killed when a Seaboard Coast Line train collided with his truck. A jury verdict was returned in the appellee’s favor, and White appeals the judgment entered on that verdict, contending there were errors in evidentiary rulings and in the charge. We find no reversible error and affirm the judgment.

1. As the decedent’s truck approached a railroad crossing in Ambrose, Georgia, warning lights and bells indicated an approaching train. The view between the train and the truck was obstructed by railroad tank cars parked on a side track. One truck pulled up to and traversed the crossing a few seconds before the decedent attempted to. The decedent approached slowly, stopped or nearly stopped, then pulled onto the track and was broadsided by the train. The appellant attempted to introduce testimony concerning prior malfunctions of the warning devices at this crossing, purportedly to show that the devices occasionally became activated although no train was coming. If this was true, and if it was commonly known, then an inference might be raised in the minds of the jury that the decedent thought there was no train coming as he pulled onto the track. Such an inference is relevant to determining the amount, if any, of the decedent’s negligence; the testimony was therefore admissible. Steiner v. Melvin, 143 Ga. App. 97 (1977).

However, at the time the testimony was excluded the trial court was not informed what the witness would have answered, and how that answer would have been material and would have benefited the appellant. The exclusion of admissible testimony does not constitute reversible error [822]*822unless the trial court is apprised of these factors. Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (43 SE 712) (1903).

Argued May 3, 1977 Decided November 10, 1977. Edwin M. Saginar, for appellant. Jay, Garden, Sherrell & Smith, Clayton Jay, Jr., for appellees.

2. The remaining objections to evidentiary rulings and the charge are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., concurs. McMurray, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.E.2d 203, 143 Ga. App. 821, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-seaboard-coast-line-railroad-gactapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack