Georgia Pacific Railway Co. v. West
Georgia Pacific Railway Co. v. West
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
After carefully examining the evidence in this case and the instructions as applicable to it, we do not think that they are subject to the objections urged by counsel.
It may be admitted that some of the instructions for the plaintiff are not expressed with verbal accuracy in all respects, and that some of the language of the court in modifying several instructions asked by the defendant is not felicitous, but the substantial meaning of the instructions is plain, and the jury could not have been misled by them, and in such case their verdict should not be disturbed, if there is sufficient evidence to sustain it, as in this case.
We are not disposed to regard the objection to the instructions on the ground of want of applicability to the issue made by the pleadings, since, if that had been urged in the court below, when the instructions were presented, and found valid, an immediate amendment should have been ordered. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Georgia Pacific Railway Co. v. Julia West
- Cited By
- 12 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Instructions. Verbal inaccuracies. Verdict not disturbed. A verdict, where there is sufficient evidence to sustain it, will not be disturbed because of verbal inaccuracies in some of the instructions, if they be otherwise correct, and their substantial meaning when taken together is plain. 2. Railroads. . Duty to passengers. Must stop reasonable time. Ordinarily the employees in charge of a train do not owe a duty to passengers on board to stop longer than is sufficient for them safely and conveniently to get off; but even after the usual stop, it is negligence for them to start the train if they know, or have reason to believe, that a passenger is in the act of alighting, or that the passenger intending to alight, from age or infirmity, requires a longer time than usual to alight. 3. Contributory Negligence. Instruction. The court properly refused to instruct that it is contributory negligence per se for a passenger to alight from a train on the platform of the station if the train is in motion, where the only evidence as to the train’s failure to stop is that it was barely moving, and this is coupled with the statement that the passenger was being assisted to alight by an employee in charge of the train. 4. Instructions. Want of applicability, when objected to. Where instructions, applicable to the evidence, are objected to because not applicable to the issue made by the pleadings, this objection should be made when the instructions are presented, for then an immediate amendment of the pleadings can be had.