Legal Opinion
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Fulford
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided February 20, 1925No. 4337PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBeck, P. J.
1-2. The general rule is that a railroad company owes to a trespasser walking upon its track the duty not to injure him wilfully or negligently after his presence becomes known to its servants in charge of the train; but it owes to such trespasser no duty of protection until his presence is actually discovered by its servants. Southern Ry. Co. v. Eubanks, 117 Ga. 217 (43 S. E. 487); Kendrick v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 121 Ga. 775 (49 S. E. 762). And this was the rule as to the duty owed by a railroad company to trespassers upon any portion of its tracks until the passage of an act approved…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lowe v. PayneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
- Moore v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Southern Railway Co. v. EubanksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Kendrick v. Seaboard Air-Line RailwaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
3Cited by37 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. SlatonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. MichaelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Hammontree v. Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Richardson v. PollardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. FulfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.