Case ID: ga_89/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gober, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Georgia Pacific Railway Company v. Hudson.
    The evidence warranted the verdict, and the damages found were not excessive.
    May 2, 1892.
    Gober, Judge, presiding, by consent of parties, in place of Simmons, J., absent from providential cause.
    
      Railroads. Damages. Negligence. Before Judge Van Epps. City court of Atlanta. September term, 1891.
    The plaintiff recovered a verdict against the railway company for $5,000 damages. The defendant moved for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and was excessive. The motion was overruled. The testimony as to the circumstances of the injury, being substantially similar to that set out in the former report of this case (85 Ga. 203), need not be repeated here. No evidence was introduced by the defendant. It appeared for the plaintiff that he was about twenty-one years of age when the injury happened, and was earning about $45 a month. His fall from the car was fifty-two feet, the train being on a trestle. He was unconscious for several days, was confined to bed over a month, walked with crutches for a long time, and suffered great pain in his back and hip. His hearing and eyesight were impaired; he became generally debilitated, and his nervous condition was rendered bad ; his capacity to labor was reduced more than half; and the effects of his injuries a-re likely to be permanent.
    Jackson & Jackson, for plaintiff' in error.
    Hoke & Burton Smith and J. R. Whiteside, contra.
    
   Gober, Judge.

This case was before this court at the March term, 1890, and was reported in the 85th Ga. p. 203. The case was brought here by plaintiff upon a nonsuit below. The ease was reversed and sent back for trial before a jury. The main point decided is set forth in the head-note of the former decision: Whether or not a train flagman who was injured while giving signals to the engineer, was in thedine of his duty or was assuming to act for the conductor, and whether or not he was guilty of contributory negligence, were questions for the jury.

The facts upon the second trial did not vary materially from those on the former trial. This case was one for the jury. They found a verdict for the plaintiff. No error appears. The head-note sufficiently sets forth the opinion of this court. The judgment is affirmed.