Southern Railway Co. v. Reeves
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Metts v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
- Korn v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
- Gertrude Wooten v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company (7th Cir. 1961)
- Yu v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (Conn. 1958)
- Delta Air Lines Inc. v. Millirons (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)
- Watts v. Colonial Stages Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
- Southern Ry. Co. v. Laxson (Ala. 1927)
- Kennedy v. Ocean Steamship Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
- Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Brewton (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
- Olson v. Des Moines City Railway Co. (Iowa 1919)
- Mize v. Southern Railway Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1914)
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Madden (Ga. 1910)
- Tuten v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (Ga. Ct. App. 1908)
- Pere Marquette Railroad v. Strange (Ind. 1908)
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Brooks (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
- Chance v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Brown (Ga. 1914)
- Atlanta Terminal Co. v. Johnson (Ga. Ct. App. 1914)
- Layne v. Chicago & Alton Railroad (Mo. Ct. App. 1913)
- McBride v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. (Ga. 1906)
- Tucker v. Central of Georgia Railway Co. (Ga. 1905)
- Georgia, Carolina & Northern Railway Co. v. Brown (Ga. 1904)
- Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad v. Hagblad (Neb. 1904)
- Southern Railway Co. v. Hobbs (Ga. 1903)
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
The principles stated in the headnotes seem to be (clearly deducible from the following decisions of this court: Central Railroad Co. v. Perry, 58 Ga. 461 (3); Central Railroad Co. v. Thompson, 76 Ga. 770 (2); Daniels v. Railroad Co., 96 Ga. 786; Atlanta Consolidated St. R. Co. v. Bates, 103 Ga. 333 (2), 347; Wilkes v. Railroad Company, 109 Ga. 794. The evidence, though conflicting, was sufficient to authorize a finding that the plaintiff was injured while attempting to alight from one of the trains of the defendant, that this injury resulted from the fact that the step of the car was a long distance from the ground, which was soft, and that the stool used for the purpose of enabling her to alight was set upon ground which was soft, and when the plaintiff stepped upon the stool it overturned and threw her, causing injuries which, were painful and serious. The motion for a new trial complains that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, and also that the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. When the ‘charge is taken as a whole, the extracts upon which error is assigned were not erroneous for any of the reasons set forth in the motion for a new trial, and the evidence authorized the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.