Georgia Court of Appeals, 1925

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Bradshaw

Georgia Court of Appeals · Decided September 11, 1925 · Stephens

34 Ga. App. 360; 129 S.E. 304; 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 263

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood (Supreme Court of the United States 1993)
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Duncan (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Hollomon (Ga. Ct. App. 1958)
Isom v. Schettino (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Wallace (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Young (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
Georgia Southern & Florida Railroad v. Haygood (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Cook (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co v. Parker (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Deese (5th Cir. 1950)
Montgomery v. Southern Railway Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1948)
Georgia Northern Railway Co. v. Rollins (Ga. Ct. App. 1940)
Powell v. Carter (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
Pollard v. Watkins (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
Davenport v. Waters (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Stephens, J.

1. No law of this State imposes upon a railroad engineer an absolute duty to have his engine under such control, when approaching a crossing, that he can bring it to a stop in order to avoid injury to any person at the crossing. No such absolute duty is placed upon him by the provision in the act approved August 19, 1918 (Ga. L. 1918, p. 212; 8 Park’s Code Supp. (1922), § 2677 et seq.), that a railroad engineer “shall otherwise exercise due care in approaching said crossing, in order to avoid doing injury to any person or property which may be on such crossing.” Under the statute it is a jury question whether due care under the circumstances will require the engineer, when approaching a crossing, to have his engine under such control that he can bring it to a stop, if necessary, in order to avoid injury to a person at the crossing.

2. In a suit to recover of a railroad company for damage alleged to have been caused at a public crossing, it was error for the court to instruct the jury that “our statutes require railroad engineers to have their engines under such control that they can stop at such crossings when necessary in time to prevent injury.”

3. In such a suit evidence to the effect that a highway which crosses a railroad is maintained by the public and is used by the people generally in crossing the railroad authorizes an inference of fact that the highway is a public crossing. Atkinson v. Fountain, 10 Ga. App. 307 (73 S. E. 534); Bugg v. Cook, 32 Ga. App. 116 (122 S. E. 714). The act of 1918, supra, relative to the duty of engineers at public crossings, was adapted to the evidence and was properly given in charge.

4. Applying the ruling in Southern Ry. Co. v. Nichols, 135 Ga. 11 (4) *361(68 S. E. 789), the court did not err as complained of in the fourth ground of the motion for a new trial.

Decided September 11, 1925. IF. B. Bennet, Bennet & Branch, for plaintiff in error. J. 8. Ridgdill, C. A. Christian, contra.

5. The petition as amended set out a cause of action and was not subject to the demurrer.

Judgment reversed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.