Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-10-28

BARFIELD v. SOUTHERN r. r. CO.,
Supreme Court of Georgia, July 81,
1899
a RAILROAD COMPANY IS LIABLE
FOR INJURIES CAUSED TO
LICENsEE UPON IT'S TRACK BY
REASON OF RUNNING; IT'S TRAIN
WITHIN a CITY AT A PROHIB-
TIED RATE OF SPEED.
SUCH a VIOLATION OF a CITY OR
DINANCE IS NEGLIGENCE PER
SIC.
Barheld brought his suit in the city
court OF Atlanta against the Southern
halfway Company for $4,000 damages,
Substantially setting forth in his petition
the following as his action: On the 2Sd
OF september, 1895, about o'clock y. NJ
petitioner was going from his work to-
wards MS home, in the city of Atlanttt,
walking between the tracks of deren-
dant company in the direction from
their shops to the city-goinE from said
SHOPS towards the city He was walk
ing in the space between the outside
track and the next track on his left
hand, and had passed McDanicls street.
which crosses the railroad track about
90 yards from the gate of said shoDs.
and had reached Il point about so wards
=. IL
between the tracks which at this point
was about four feet wide. He saw n
switch engine approaching him from
the direction of the city on the outside
track, and making way for the engine
to pass him he stepped over to that side
oil the foot way next TO the other track
on his left. After the engine had passed
MN, and while he was proceeding on
his way, and stepping back into his
lrst position midway between the
tracks, a freight train OF the defendant
company came backing down from his
rear on the track upon his left hand.
lie did not hear or see the train, owing
to the noise made by the switch en-
CINE. which had just passed. and ow-
ing TO the freight train coming on with
OUT signal or whistle, or the ringing of n
bell. the same having no one on the
rear car TO warn him and other foot
men OF its approach, he did not hear
the freight car until 1t was within six
or seven feet of him. when he had no
time to get out Of the way by stepping
TO the right. AS he turned towards tho
car he instinc;ively threw out his
hand, which was struck by the car, the
force of which violently Knocked him
to the earth, his left foot being caught
under the wheel of the rear car, crush
ing his foot and leg to such an extent
that the same had to be amputated
nine inches below the knee. He alleges
b,
he was earning per day before the in
jury. and that his capacity to earn
money since has been diminished one
half, and that he was free from any
negligence that contributed to his in
jury. The negligence alleged against
the company was: First, in RUNNING
It's train hack IA rrrrft7Tfr
of the city of Atlanta, without having
some one on the watch or lookout to
warn petitioner and other footmen OF
the approach of said train; second. in
running the train at n rate OF 80 miles
per hour inside the corporate limits Of
the city of Atlanta at the point where
petitioner was injured in violation of
an ordinance of said city, which forbids
all trains from running at n higher
rate of speed than 6 miles per hour in
the limits of the city; third. i'm failing
10 toll the bell Of the locomotive driy
ing the freight train. and in failing to
check and keep checking the train as
1T approached and passed McDaniels
street The petition, further alleges
that the space between the tracks was
habitually used by pedestrians in going
10 and from their work, end TO and
from different parts of the city. and
that this custom was we'll known TO
the servants. agents, and employees OF
the defendant: and, if the defendant
mad not been guilty of negligence rs
specified. petitioner would have been
in no danger in walking in said space
between the tracks. The lower court
sustained the general demurrer filed bv
the defendant to the petition on the
ground that. it set forth no cause of
action, and to this judgment the plain
biff excerpts.
The Supreme Court reversed the
lower court and held that the plaintiffs
petition showed n good cause of action
against the railroad company. Re-