Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916

Southern Railway Co. v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided December 12, 1916 · Atkinson

146 Ga. 243; 91 S.E. 28; 1916 Ga. LEXIS 683

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)
Lee v. State Farm Mutual Insurance (Ga. 2000)
Littleton v. OB-GYN Associates of Albany, P.C. (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)
MALIBU BOATS, LLC F/K/A MALIBU BOATS, INC. v. STEPHAN PAUL BATCHELDER (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)
Thomas v. Carter (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)
Strickland v. Hodges (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
Crosby v. Comcast Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)
McCunney v. Clary (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)
MacDonald v. United States (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1995)
OB-Gyn Associates of Albany v. Littleton (Ga. 1989)
Sanders v. Brown (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
Kahn v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., USA (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1985)
Amodio v. Cunningham (Conn. 1980)
Howard v. Bloodworth (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)
Strazza v. McKittrick (Conn. 1959)
Waube v. Warrington (Wis. 1935)

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

Atkinson, J.

1. If a woman exercising ordinary care in walking across a railroad-track at a street-crossing in a city, attended by her two small children, discovers that she is about to be run down by an engine approaching the crossing in a grossly negligent manner, and leaps from ’■'lie track and falls to the ground, and one of her..ehildmnMs--FTnrttWn and mangled by the .engine in her presence, and the woman on account o the fall su§|aw4lñ^isEock^ and_ endures__pain_.and suffering therefrí-n. o^e has a right of action .for thejffirong to. herself. The petition was subject to general demurrer.

2. But if - the woman, having_.srossed the railroad track, did not leap and fall or .sustain any personal jnjury, the fact that she_.witnessed the mangling the child "and became frightened and suffered a severe nervous shock “therefrom, would nfit_ entitle her to a recovery. Goddard v. Watters, 14 Ga. App. 722 (82 S. E. 304); Sanderson v. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co., 88 Minn. 162 (92 N. W. 542, 60 L. R. A. 403, 97 Am. St. R. 509); Huston v. Freemansburg, 212 Pa. 548 (61 Atl. 1022, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49, *24468); C. & O. R. Co. v. Robinett, 151 Ky. 778 (152 S. W. 976, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 433, 445) ; Conley v. United Drug Co., 218 Mass. 238 (105 N. E. 975, L R. A. 1915D, 830, 833). See also Sappington v. A. & W. P. R. Co., 127 Ga. 178 (56 S. E. 311).

December 12, 1916.

Action for damages. Before Judge Searcy. Fayette superior court. January 15, 1916.

Battle & Hollis and J. W. Culpepper, for plaintiffs in error. J. W. Wise and E. J. Reagan, contra.

(а) Applying the foregoing principles to the uncontradicted evidence, a verdict for Em plaintif^s^sjnauthorized.

(б) Certain portions of the charge upon which error was assigned were contrary to the ralings herein announced; and the judge also erred in refusing certain requests to charge which properly embodied the principles stated. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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