Copeland v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.

SOMERVILLE, .T.

We agree with the views of counsel for appellant as to the facts that were proven and the inferences that might have been reasonably drawn therefrom by the jury, with a single exception.

Counsel's argument, and indeed their theory of defendant’s liability, is based upon the assumption that plaintiff’s intestate was walking on the track approaching defendant’s train, and therefore in plain view of the engineer, at or immediately before the time he was injured. If the evidence showed, directly or by reasonable inference, that such was the case, we would agree with counsel’s…