FI FTH DI VI SI ON M ERCI ER, C. J. , M C FA DDEN, P. J. , and RI CKM A N, J.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

June 6, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 027

. CSX CORPORA TI ON et al. v . OGLESB Y.

R I C K M A N , J ud ge.
I n this interlo c u to ry a p p eal, CSX Co rp o ratio n and CSX Transp o rtatio n, I nc . (c o llec tiv ely “ CSXT” ) ap p e al f ro m the t r i a l co u rt’ s o rd er granting in p art and
d enying in part CSXT’ s mo tio n f o r su mmary ju d gment o n negligenc e claims bro u ght against CSXT b y Theartis Oglesby, w ho alleged that he h a d b e e n i n j u red w hen mo v ing

a r ailc ar. On a p p e a l , C S XT c o ntend s, inter alia, t hat the trial c o u rt erred in f ind ing
that CSXT had a l e g a l d u ty to Oglesby to sp o t (p ark ) the r ailc ar in a p artic u lar
lo c atio n. Fo r the reaso ns that f o llo w , w e agree and rev e r se.

“ [ T]o p rev ail o n a mo tio n f o r su mmary j u dgment, the m ov ing party mu st
d emo nstrate that there is no genu ine issu e o f material fac t, s o that the p arty is entitledto j u d gment as a matter o f law

. ” ( Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) C o wa rt v . W i d en e r , 287 Ga. 622, 6 23 (1 ) (a) (6 9 7 SE2d 7 7 9 ) ( 201 0). This Co u rt r e v iew s an o rd er granting o r denying su mmary j u d gment d e no v o and v iew s “ the ev id enc e, and all

reaso nable inf

erenc es d raw n theref

ro m, in the lig h t mo st f av o rable to the

no nmo v ant. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) I d

. at 6 24 (1 ) (a).
So v iew ed , the rec o rd sho w s t hat, in 201 6 , Oglesby w o rk ed a s a su p erv iso r at
So u thland W o od Pro d u c ts. So u thland w as ow ned by th e s a m e f amily that o w ned
Grif f in L u m b e r Co mp any. Grif f in ship ped lu mber p ro d u c ts b y r a il, and CSXT
d eliv e red railc ars to Grif

f in o nc e o r tw ic e a w eek

. The Grif f in f ac ility is serv ed by a sid etrac k that e xtend s fro m CSXT’ s main line
into Grif f in’ s p ro p e rty. A sto rage trac k extend s fro m the sid etr a c k i n the mid d le o f
Grif f in’ s p ro p e rty. W hen CSXT d eliv ers a railc a r to Grif f in, the CSXT engineer u ses
the engine to p ush the r ailc ar fro m CSXT’ s mainline to the sid etrac k a nd then to the

sto rage trac k

. The engineer o p erates the engine w hile the CSXT c o nd u c to r is o n the

gro und d irec ting the engineer w here to sto p the c ar. A f ter the railc ar is sto p p ed o n the

sto rage trac k , the co nd u cto r a p p lies the hand brak e. The hand brak e is lo c ated o n an
elev ated p latf

o rm o n o ne end o f the railc ar. I t is manu ally o p era t e d b y t u rning the

2brak e w heel c lo c k w ise, w hic h tighte n s a c hain and ap plies the r ailc ar’ s brak es. The

hand bra k e i s released either by tu rning t he w heel co u nterc lo c k wise o r p u lling the

qu ic k release lev er next to the w heel. A fter the c o nd u c to r ap p lies the hand brak e to a

c ar o n the sto rage trac k , he instru c ts the engineer to p u sh the railc ar to test the brak e.
The hand brak e is ap p lied and wo rk ing ef f e c tiv ely if the railc ar’ s w heels slid e o n the
rail r ather t han tu rn. I f the hand brak e is w o rk ing p ro p erly, t he co nd u c to r u nc o u p les
the railc ar f

ro m the train, w hic h au to matic ally ap p lies the railc ar’ s air brak e.
The Grif f in sto rage trac k has a f

a l l p r o tec tio n system c o nsisting o f f ou r p o les

next to the tr a c k w i t h a w ire ru nning betw een the t o p o f t hem. T he f all p ro tec tio n system is u sed by Grif

fin o r So u thland emp lo yees w hile p u tting a tarp o v er a lo ad ed
railc ar. T he f

o u r p o les c reate t hree slo ts f or railc ars to be sp otted o n the sto rage trac k

. The railc ars mu s t b e sp o tted betw een t he fall p ro tec tio n p o les so the c ars c an be
lo ad ed w ith a f

o rk l i f t. CSXT’ s lo ngtime co nd u c to r w ho regu larly w ent to Grif f in
testif ied he k new t o sp o t railc a rs betw een the f all p ro tec tio n p o les and that is w hat he
alw ays d id

. The c o nd u c t o r a lso testif ied t h a t anytime he interac ted w ith Grif f in

emp lo yees, they ind ic ated that the railc ars w e r e in an ap p ro p riate lo c atio n.

3Oglesby testif ied that he w as inv o lv ed in mo v ing railc ars the e ntire time he w as
emp lo yed at So u thland

. Ac c o r d ing to Oglesby, “ a lo t o f times” a railc ar that had been

sp o tted o n the sto rage trac k need ed to be m o v e d t o c enter it betw een the p oles. Oglesby’ s su p erv iso r estimated that railc ars that had been sp o tted o n the sto rage trac k
need ed to be mo v ed ap p ro ximately tw o to three times p er year. Oglesby testif ied that
the p ro c ed u r e f

o r m ov ing the r ailc ars w a s to release the r ailc ar’ s air brak es, let the
railc ar ro ll, and ap p ly the hand brak e to sto p the railc a r.
The engineer w ho regu larly d eliv ered railc a r s to Grif f in testif ied that the o nly
situ atio n in w hic h he had kno wn Grif f in or So u thland emp lo yees to mo v e railc ars w as
if three c ars had b e en d e liv ered , w hic h w a s no t o f ten. A c co rd ing to the e ngineer, they

c o u ld no t sp o t mo re than tw o c ars on the sto rage trac k bec au se they w ere no t allo w ed

to sp ot a c ar near the end of the trac k , so if Gri f f in w as getting three c a rs d eliv ered ,

o ne of the c ars w o u ld be sp otted o n the sid etrac k

. The engineer testif ied t hat he had

seen Grif f in or So u thland e mp lo yees u se a f ro nt- end lo a d er to m o ve a railc ar that had
been sp o tted o n the sid etrac k

. The c ond u c to r also testif ied that he had seen so meo ne

at Grif fin mo v ing a railc ar w ith a f ro nt- e nd lo ad er. The c ond u c to r testif ied that he had

nev er seen Grif

f in o r So u thland emp lo yees mo v ing railc ars u sing the hand brak e.

4I n Sep tember 201 6 , Oglesby attemp ted to mo v e a railc ar that had been sp o tted

o n the sto rage trac k

. A t his d ep o sitio n, Oglesby c o u ld no t rec all where the railc ar w as
sp o tted o n the sto rage trac k or ho w f ar it need ed to be mo v ed

. Oglesby mo u nted the
railc ar’ s b rak e platf

o rm and ano ther e mp lo yee released the railc a r’ s air brak e. Oglesby
testif ied that the railc ar started mo v ing t ow ard s the end of the trac k , and he c o u ld no t

sto p the railc ar u sing the hand brak e. H e c o u ld no t remember if he t u r n e d t h e h a nd
brak e c lo c k w ise o r c ou nterc lo c k w ise. The railc ar stru c k a m etal blo c k lo c ated at the
end o f the t rac k

. Oglesby w a s thro w n f ro m the railc ar and bro k e his fo o t u p o n hitting the gro u nd

. Oglesby f iled a c o mp laint against CSXT, asserting t hat CSXT w as negligent in

sp o tting the railc ar in a p lac e that requ ired O g l e s b y t o m o v e the r ailc ar a nd that the
hand brak e w as d ef

ec t iv e. CSXT f

il e d a mo tio n f

or su m mary j u d gment. CSXT
maintained that it w as entitled to su mmary j ud gment o n t he negligent sp o t ting c laim
bec au se it d id no t hav e a d u ty to sp ot the railc ar in a p artic u lar lo catio n, CSXT c o u ld

no t hav e reaso nably f

oreseen t h a t S o u thland emp lo y ees w o u ld attemp t t o mo v e the
railc ar u sing the hand brak e, and CSXT’ s sp o t ting o f the railc ar w as no t the p ro ximate

c au se o f Oglesby’ s inj u ry. CSXT also c o ntend ed that su mmary j u d gment sho u ld be

5granted o n Oglesby’ s claim that the hand brak e w as d ef ec tiv e bec au se ther e w a s no

ev id enc e su p p o rting that c laim.
A f ter a hearing, the trial co u rt granted CSXT’ s mo tio n f o r su mmary j u d gment

as t o Oglesby’ s claim that the hand brak e w as d ef ec tiv e, bu t d enied the mo tio n a s to
the negligent sp o tting claim. T he trial c o u rt f o u nd that CSXT o w e d a d u ty to p ro tec t Oglesby f ro m “ u nreaso nable r isk s o f harm and tak e prec au tio ns c o mmensu rate w ith
the d anger inherent in mo v ing o r o therw ise lo ad ing a nd unlo ad ing railc ars to red u c e
the risk o f f

o reseeable inj ury to [Oglesby]. ” The t rial c o u r t also fo u nd t hat a j u ry issu e
existed as to f

o reseeability and p ro ximate cau se. T he trial c o u r t c ertif ied its d ec isio n
f o r immed iate rev iew , and this Co u rt su bsequ ently granted CSXT’ s ap p li c a t i o n f o r
interlo c u to ry ap peal. This ap p eal f o llo w ed

.
1

. CSXT co ntend s that the trial c o u rt erred b y ho ld ing that CSXT c an be liable

to its c u sto mer’ s emp lo yee who is inj u red w hile m o ving a no n- d ef ec tiv e railc ar based

o n the lo c atio n w here the railc ar is sp otted by CSXT at the c u sto mer’ s f ac ility.
The essential elements o f a negligenc e c laim are t he e xistenc e o f a legal d u ty; breac h o f that d u ty; a c au sal c o nnec tio n betw een the def end ant’ s
c o nd u c t and the p laintif

f ’ s inj u ry; an d d a mages. Thu s, the thresho ld issu e in a negligenc e ac tio n is whether and to what extent the d ef e nd a nt
o w es a legal d u ty to the p laintif f

. This issu e is a qu estio n o f law

.
6(Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) D u tt v. Ma n n a r a n d Co

. , 354 Ga. A p p . 56 5, 5 6 6

(2) (841 SE2d 1 32) (2020). A “ legal d uty” is t he “ o bligatio n to c o nf o rm to a s tand ard

o f c o nd u c t u nd er t he law f o r the p ro tec t io n o f o t hers against u nreaso nable risk s o f
harm. ” Ra s n i

ck v . Kri s hn a Ho s p i ta li ty, In c

. , 289 Ga. 56 5, 56 6 (7 13 SE2d 835) (201 1 ).
A legal d uty su f

f ic ient to su pp o rt liabi l i t y in negligenc e is either a d u ty imp o sed b y a v alid statu to ry enac t ment of the legislatu r e o r a d u ty imp o sed by a rec o gniz ed c o mmo n law p rinc ip le d ec lared in the rep o rted d ec isio ns o f o u r a p p e llate c o u rts. I n the absenc e o f a legally c o gniz able d u ty, there c an be no f

a u lt o r negligenc e.
(Citatio n and p u nc t u atio n omitted

. ) D u tt , 354 Ga. A p p . at 56 6 (2). There is no general lega l d u t y “ to all the w o rld no t to su bj e c t o thers to an u nreaso nable risk of harm. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) D ept. o f La b o r v . McC

on n ell , 305 Ga. 81 2, 81 6 (3) (a) (828 SE2d 352) (201 9 )

. I n his c o mp laint, Oglesby c laimed t hat CSXT w a s negligent in “ negligently
d ro p ping [the] f

lat bed rail c ar in a lo c atio n w here it w o u ld hav e to be manu ally mo v ed

to saf ely o f f lo ad the c argo therein; ” t h u s , Oglesby “ has to sho w that [CSXT] had a legal o bligatio n, i. e . , a du ty” to him to s p o t the railc ar w here it w o u ld no t need to be

mo v ed

. Ra s n ick , 289 Ga. at 56 7 (1 ).

7U n d er c u rrent Geo rgia law , a railro ad has a d u ty to f u rnish railc ars tha t a r e

reaso nably saf

e f or their intend ed u se. W

eeks v . Po lla rd , 6 5 Ga. A p p . 37 7 , 389 ( 1 6 SE2d 225) (1 941 )

. I n Bro wn v . S o u thern R. C o . , 1 1 4 Ga. A p p . 429 (1 51 SE2d 51 9 ) (1 9 6 6 ), this
Co u rt exp lained that: [a] r a i l r o a d c o mp any w hic h is a c o mmo n carrier, if either the initial o r the u ltimate carrier, transp o r ting a c ar c o ntaining f reight, o wes a d u ty to the c o nsignee o r his serv ant, w hen e ither the co nsignee o r his serv ant is engaged in t h e b u s iness o f u nlo ad ing the c a r, af ter it has arriv ed at its d estinatio n. This du ty is to see that the c ar and its d ev ic es f o r u nlo ad ing it are reaso nably saf

e f o r su c h p u rp ose. This is tru e, altho u gh the j o urney
o f the c a r is end ed , a nd it has been sw itc hed u p o n a sid e- trac k belo nging
to the c o nsignee.
(Citatio ns and pu nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) I d

. at 430- 431 (1 ). A nd in Bu t ler v . Cen tra l o

f Ga

. R. C o . , 87 Ga. A p p . 49 2 (7 4 SE2d 39 5) (1 9 53), this Co urt stated that: [t]he u ltimate c arrier is u nd er the d u ty to insp ec t a railro ad c ar it rec eiv es in ship ment to a s c ertain w hether t he c ar and i t s u nlo ad ing d ev ic e s a re
r e a s o n a bly saf

e; and if , on examinatio n, it is disc ov ered t hat the c a r o r any part o f its u nlo ad ing dev ic es is u nsaf e, it is the c arrier’ s du ty to mak e the nec e ssary rep airs o r c o rrec t t h e u n s a f e c o nd itio n o r t o no tif

y the

c o nsignee o f

the d angero u s d ef

ec ts o r c o nd itio n.

8I d

. at 49 4. CSXT maintains that the trial c o u rt imp ro p erly e xp and ed the d u t y o f a

d eliv e ring railro a d w itho u t a statu t o ry o r c o mmo n law basis.
I n su p p o rt o f his c l a i m t h a t CSXT had a legal d u ty t o him to s p o t the railc a r

w here it wo u ld no t need to be mo v ed , Oglesby mak es three argu ments. First, relying

o n Alex a n der v . Ha rn i

ck , 1 42 G a. A p p . 81 6 , 81 7 (3) (237 SE2d 221 ) (1 9 77 ), he argu es
that CSXT o w ed a legal d u ty to him bec au se it c reated a situ atio n o f p eril that c au sed Oglesby harm. I n A lex

a n der , this Co u rt c o nsid ered w hether the o w ner o f a ho u sebo at
that had no thro wable lif

e p reserv ers o n bo ard , in v io latio n o f the G eo rgia B oat Saf ety
A c t, c o u ld be held liable f o r his f ailu re to resc u e a gu e s t w ho ap p arently j ump ed into
the w a ter f

ro m the ho u sebo at. I d

. The Co u rt rec o gniz ed the general p r inc ip le that a

p erso n has no d u ty to resc u e ano ther f ro m a situ atio n o f p eril whic h the p erso n d id no t

c au se, bu t held that “ [ i]f the def end ant’ s o w n negligenc e has b een resp o nsible f o r the

p laintif f ’ s situ atio n, a relatio n has arisen w hic h imp o ses a d u ty to mak e a reaso nable
ef f o r t to giv e assistanc e, and a v o i d any f urther harm. ” (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n

o mitted .) I d. H ere, bec au se Oglesby’ s negligenc e c laim is no t based o n a f ailu re to
rend e r aid , the c o mmo n law p rinc ip le artic u lated in Alex a n d er is inap p lic able. Oglesby also relies o n tw o Fed eral Emp lo y er’ s Liability A c t (“ FELA ” ) c ases,

9Ga

. S o u thern & Flo ri da R. C o. v . Peters , 284 Ga. A p p . 139 , 1 45 (2) ( 6 43 S E 2 d 7 86 ) (2007 ) and Zea

gler v . N o r f olk S o u thern R. C

o . , 31 7 Ga. A p p . 302 ( 730 SE2d 6 57 ) (201 2), to argu e tha t C S X T o w e d Oglesby a d u ty of exerc ising o rd inary c are in
d eliv e ring the railc ar so it wo u ld no t need to be relo c ated

. H o w e v e r, bec au s e Oglesby

w as no t a railro ad emp lo yee, FELA , 45 USC § 51 e t s eq. , w hic h “ p ro vid es a f ed eral

to r t remed y f

o r r ailro ad emp lo yees inj u red o n the j o b,” Zea gler , 31 7 Ga. A p p . at 303,
is no t ap p lic able here. Finally, Oglesby c ites Wa lker v . C S X Tra n s po rta ti o n , In c. , N o.

1 : 07

- CV

- 1 6 22- GET, 201 0 W L 1 1 506 86 5 (N

. D

. Ga. , J uly 29 , 201 0) and S ea b o a rd Ai r
Li n e R. v . Ba ker , 1 7 Ga. Ap p. 529 ( 8 7 S E 8 2 8) ( 1 91 6 ), bu t neither c a se establishes a legal d u ty f

o r a railro a d to sp o t a railc ar in a p artic u lar lo c a tio n.
I n W a lker , the distric t c o u rt stated that: “ Und er Geo rgia law , the c arrier w ho
f u rnishes the c ar on the o c c asio n in qu estio n has t he d u ty to exerc ise o rd inary c are to

see t hat the car and its u nlo ad i n g a p p l ianc es are in a reaso nably saf e c o nd itio n to be

u sed by the c o nsignee o r his serv ants w hile u nlo ad ing the car. ” (Citatio n,
p u nc tu atio n, and emp hasis omitted

. ) W a lker , 201 0 W L 1 1 506 86 5 at * 8. The d istric t

c o u rt w ent o n to state that “ [i]f the c ar is su itable and reaso nably saf e w hen it leav es

10the p o ssessio n and c o ntro l o f the railro ad , . . . it has exerc ised d u e c are. ” (Citatio n and

p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) I d

. I n S ea b o a rd Ai

r Li n e R

. , a railc ar that the p laintif f had been lo ad ing f

o r a ship p er

“ was stru c k at the o ther end by c ars mo v ed b y o ne o f the d ef end ant’ s engines to and

u p o n this trac k w itho u t no tic e o r w arning to h i m , a n d n o t within his f ield o f

v isio n. ” S ea b o a rd Ai

r Li ne R. , 1 7 Ga. A p p . at 529

- 5 30. The Co u rt o f A pp eals held , in

p art, as f o llo w s:
W h e n t h e d ef

e nd ant p lac ed a c ar o n its sid e- trac k to be lo ad ed b y t h e ship p er, it d id so w ith k no w led ge t hat the ship p er and hi s e m p lo yees
w o u ld be engaged in and abo u t t h e c a r fro m t ime to time u ntil the

c o mp letio n o f t he lo ad ing ; and this k no w led ge carried w ith it a
c o rresp ond ing d u ty, in o perating and mo v ing this p artic u lar car, o r o ther

c a r s u p o n the same trac k , t o d o so in su c h a manner a s w ou ld no t end anger t he saf

ety o f tho se engaged in lo a d ing the c ar, a nd to giv e them

no tic e o r w arning. Serv ants o f ship p ers o r c o nsignees o f go o d s, w h i l e lo ad ing o r u nlo ad ing the go o d s f r o m o r u p o n c a rs o n a sid e- trac k of the railro ad c arrier, w ith its c o nsent, exp ress o r imp lied , are no t tresp assers
o r bare lic ensees, and the railro ad co mp a ny is bo u nd to exerc ise o rd inary

c are to av o id inj ury to them w hile they are so engaged

. (Citatio ns and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) I d

. at 530. A ltho u gh the Co u rt of A p p eals
ref erred to the railro ad ’ s o bligatio n to “ exerc ise o r d inary care to av o id inj u ry” to the

11ship p er’ s e mp lo yees, t he sp ec if ic d uty id entif

ied by t h e C o u r t w a s a “ d u ty, in

o p erating and mo v ing this p artic u lar c ar, o r o t her c ars u p o n the same t r ac k , to d o so
in su c h a m anner a s wo u ld no t end anger the saf ety o f tho se engaged in lo ad ing the c ar,
and to gi ve them no t ic e o r w arning. ” I d

. The Co u r t d id no t c o nsid er whether the
railro ad had a d u ty to sp o t a railc ar in a p artic u lar lo c atio n.
Giv en that Oglesby c anno t p ro v e a k e y element o f his negligent sp o tting c laim,

name l y t hat CSXT had a legal d u ty to him imp o sed by s tatu te o r a rec o gniz ed

c o mmo n law p rinc ip le to s p o t the railc ar w here it w o u ld no t need t o be mo v ed , w e

rev erse the t r ial c o u rt’ s d enial o f CSXT’ s mo tio n f o r su mmary ju d gment o n the negligent sp otting c laim. See Ra s n i c k , 289 Ga. at 56 7 (1 ); Du tt , 354 Ga. A pp . at 5 6 6 (2).

2. Giv en o u r ho ld ing in D iv isio n 1 , w e need no t ad d r ess CSXT’ s r emaining

enu meratio ns o f

erro r.
Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. Merci

er, C

. J. c o n cu rs a n d McFa dden

, P. J. di s sen ts
.

12

# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 027

. CSX CORPORA TI ON et al. v . OGLESB Y.

M C F A D D E N , Presid ing J u d ge, d issenting.
Ou r c o u r ts hav e said many times and in many w ays that a railro ad o w es a d u ty

to emp lo yees o f i t s c u s t o mers w ho are engaged in lo ad ing or u nlo ad ing railc ars
bro u ght to the c u sto m er’ s p ro p erty f o r that p u rp o s e. A t issu e to d ay is the sc o p e o f
that d u ty.
Theartis Oglesby’ s emp lo yer had c o nstru c ted a f all p ro tec tio n s ystem to allo w
its emp lo yees t o s af

e ly lo ad and u nlo ad railc a rs. That sys t e m w o r k e d o nly if the
railc ars w ere p lac ed , o r sp otted , in the r i g h t l o c atio n. Rep eated ly, o v er years, the

13d ef

end ants, c o llec tiv ely CSXT, sp o tted railc ars in the w ro ng lo c atio n. W hen CSXT

s p o t ted railc ars in the w ro ng lo c a t io n, the c u sto mer had to mo v e them. There i s

ev id enc e o f rec o r d that, when the c u sto mer had to mo v e t hem, the p ro c ess w as mo re
d angero u s. A nd there is ev id enc e that Oglesby w as inj u r ed as a c o nsequ enc e.
The maj o rity rev erses o n the basis that Oglesby has f ailed to cite a w hite- ho r se

c ase. Fo r the maj o rity, his bu rd en w as to c ite case law ho ld ing that CSXT “ had a d u ty

to sp o t a railc ar in a p artic u lar lo c atio n. ” I d isagree. The d u ty is no t so narro w . I w o u ld a f

f irm t he p artial d enial o f su mmary j u d gment to CSXT, so I

resp ec t f u lly d issent.
This is a neglig e n c e a c tio n. The legal du ty enf o rc ed in negligenc e ac tio ns “ is
the o b ligatio n to c o nf

o rm to a stand ard of c o nd u c t u nd e r the law f or the p ro tec tio n o f

o thers against u nreaso nable risk s o f harm. ” Ra s n i ck v . Kri shn a Ho s p i t a li ty , 289 Ga.

56 5, 56 6 (7 1 3 SE2d 835) (201 1 ). “ N egligenc e c o nsists o f exp o sing ano ther to w ho m

o ne o w es a d u ty
. . . to a f o reseeable, u nreaso nable p ro bability o f harm. ” E l li n gto n v . To la r C o n s tr. C o. , 237 Ga. 235, 238 (I I I ) (227 SE2d 336 ) (1 9 7 6 ).
CSXT ow ed Oglesby that d u ty. Und er G e o rgia law , a railro ad c o mp any
f u rnishing a r ailc ar t o a c u sto mer f o r lo ad ing o r u nlo ad ing has a d u ty “to see that the

14c ar and its d ev ic es f or [lo ad ing o r] unlo ad ing it a re reaso nably saf e f o r su c h p u rp o se. ”
W eeks v . Po lla rd , 6 5 Ga. Ap p . 3 7 7 , 3 8 8 (1 6 SE2d 225) (1 9 41 ). See, e. g. , Bro wn v . S o u thern R. C

o . , 1 1 4 G a . A p p . 429 , 430- 431 (1 ) (1 51 SE2d 51 9 ) (1 9 6 6 ) (a railro ad

c o mp a ny o w es a du ty to a c o nsignee o r its serv ant to see that a railc a r that w as
d eliv e red to the c o nsignee is reaso nably saf e f o r u nlo ad ing, ev en i f i t i s o n the

c o nsignee’ s p ro p erty); Bu tler v . C en tra l o f Ga

. R. C

o . , 87 Ga. A p p . 49 2, 49 4 (7 4 SE2d

39 5) (1 9 53) ( a r a ilro ad c o mp any has a d u ty to asc ertain if its railc ar and u nlo ad ing
d ev ic e s a re reaso nably s af e and , if no t, to “ c o rrec t the u nsaf e c o nd itio n” ) ; S ea b o a rd
Ai r- Li n e R. v . Ba ker , 1 7 Ga. A p p. 529 , 530 (87 SE 828) (1 9 1 6 ) (a railro ad c o mp any’ s
k no w led ge that a ship p er and its emp lo yees w o uld be engaged w ith a railc ar plac ed o n

a sid e trac k f

o r lo ad ing carried with it a d u ty to o p erate a nd mo v e the c a r in a w ay that

w o u ld no t end anger their saf ety).
The p u rp ose of this du ty is to assu re “ that [the c u sto me r ’ s ] s erv ants, w hile
themselv es exerc ising o rd inary c are, c an p ro c eed w ith t he w o r k o f u nlo a d ing the c a r

w ith reaso nable saf

ety. ” Atla n ta & W

es t Po i n t R. C o . v . C reel , 7 7 G a. A p p . 7 7 , 83 (2) (47 SE2d 7 6 2) (1 9 48) (p u nc tu a tio n o mitted )

.

15This d u ty is no t limited to su p p lying no n- d e f ec tiv e c ars and d ev ic es. I t entails

a d uty to “ o p e rat[e] and mo v [e]” railc ars in “ a manner a s wo u ld no t end anger the
saf ety o f tho se engaged in lo ad ing the c ar. ” S ea b oa rd Ai r- Li ne R. , 1 7 Ga. A pp . at 530.
I t is tru e that und er Geo rgia law “ [t]here is no general legal du t y to all the w orld

no t to su b j ec t others to an u nreaso nable risk o f harm. ” W i lli a ms v . Ka s u lka Pro

perti es ,
37 0 G a. A p p . 6 5 3, 6 58 (3) (89 8 SE2d 843) (2024). A c co rd Ma yn a rd v . Sn a

pcha t, In c . , 357 Ga. A p p . 49 6 , 49 9 (851 SE2d 1 28) (2020), rev ’ d ,, 31 3 Ga. 533 ( 8 7 0 S E 2 d 7 39 ) (2022). B u t w here — as here — a c o m mo n law du ty d o es ru n, o u r law d o es no t

r e q u ire au tho r ity d irec tly on p o int. Ou r law d o es no t p resu pp o se “ blank e t

exc ep tio n[s]” that bar rec ov e ry u nd er rec o gniz ed c o mmo n law d u ties, u nless a
p lai n t i f f c an c ite c ase law on all f o u rs. Ma yn a rd , 31 3 Ga. at 545 (c ), (d ). On the

c o ntrary, it is CSXT’ s bu rd en, as the mo v a nt on su mmary j u d gment, to sho w that it
f ell w ithin a n exc ep tio n to the general d u ty. See generally C o wa rt v. W

iden e r , 287 Ga.

6 22, 6 23 (1 ) ( a) (6 9 7 SE2d 7 7 9) (201 0) (the mo v ing p arty on su mmary j ud gment has
the bu r d e n o f demo nstrating that it is entitled to ju d gment as a matter of law ). I t has

no t d o ne so .

16Oglesby “ asserted a c o nv entio nal [negligenc e] c laim based on [ an] o rd inary

.

. . d u ty rec o gniz ed und er o u r d ec isio nal law [. ]” Ma yn a rd , 31 3 Ga. at 5 45 ( 4) (b). A nd
he p o inted to ev id enc e that CSXT k new railc ars sho u ld be sp o tted in the d esignated
f all- p ro tec tio n area f

o r saf ety r easo ns and k new that, if railc ars w ere no t sp o tted in that

area, its cu sto mer’ s e m p l o ye e s , su c h as Oglesby, w o u ld hav e to m o ve the railc ars bef o re lo ad ing them.
So I w o u ld af

f irm the trial c ou rt’ s f

ind ing that CSXT o w ed Oglesby a d u ty in

c o nnec tio n w ith the sp o tting o f the railc ar. I also agree with the trial c o urt’ s f ind ings
that genu ine issu e s of material f ac t exist as to the o ther elements o f Oglesby’ s negligenc e c laim relat ed to the sp o tting of the railc ar and w o u ld a f firm the d enial o f

su mmary j u d gment as to that c laim as w ell.

17