Savannah & Atlanta Railway v. Jones
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from city court of Savannah—Judge Ereeman. April 19, 1918. ■ The special grounds of the motion for a new trial g,re: “1. Because the court, after reciting in detail the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition, and thereby bringing to the jury’s attention all the contentions of the plaintiff, failed to state the following contention of the defendant: that plaintiff’s horse could have easily gotten off of the railroad tracks between the time he saw the…
Read the full summary
Action for damages; from city court of Savannah—Judge Ereeman. April 19, 1918. ■ The special grounds of the motion for a new trial g,re: “1. Because the court, after reciting in detail the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition, and thereby bringing to the jury’s attention all the contentions of the plaintiff, failed to state the following contention of the defendant: that plaintiff’s horse could have easily gotten off of the railroad tracks between the time he saw the engine coming and the time he attempted to cross the' railroad trestle.” 2. The court refused to charge the jury as follows:…
1Opinion of the CourtWade, C. J.
1. Questions of negligence are ordinarily for the jury; and we cannot hold that there was no evidence to authorize the finding that the death of' the plaintiff’s horse (which fell through a trestle when running ahead of the defendant’s train) resulted from a failure on the part of the railway employees to exercise proper care and diligence to prevent injury to the horse, when it must necessarily have appeared to the engineer in charge of the locomotive that the horse proceeding down the track in the *676direction of the open trestle would, with reasonable certainty, be urged forward to this point…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Gay v. WadleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Southern Railway Co. v. FrixSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912