Richmond & Danville Railroad v. Dickey
Supreme Court of Georgia
Eailroad employee. Negligence. Machinery. Before Judge Westmoreland. City court of Atlanta.
1Opinion of the Court
Lumpkin, Justice.
1. Among other acts of negligence alleged in the declaration was that stated in the first head-note. After a careful and laborí o as examination of the evidence as contained in the record, we have been unable to find any proof sustaining this charge, and have ruled accordingly.
2. The purpose for which an ordinary brake is attached to a railroad car is to afford a means of readily stopping it, or cheeking its speed, when the ear is in motion, by turning a wheel at the top of a brake-rod. If such a brake was so constructed that it would not properly perform this work when thus…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Babcock Bros. Lumber Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Vinson v. Willingham Cotton MillsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Ayers v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
- Dabbs v. Rome Railway & Light Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1910
- MAYNARD v. SNAPCHAT, INCSupreme Court of Georgia · 2022
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.