Case Name: ESLINGER v. WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. R. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1896-08-24
Citations: 99 Ga. 327
Docket Number: 
Parties: ESLINGER v. WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. R. CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 99
Pages: 327–336

Head Matter:
ESLINGER v. WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. R. CO.
August 24, 1896.
Action for damages. Before Judge Miluer. Whitfield superior court. October term, 1895.
Mrs. Eslinger sued the railroad company for damages because of the billing of her husband. Her declaration alleged in brief: On June 4, 1892, and for some time previous, her husband was employed by defendant as- car-coupler in its yard in Atlanta. On June 4th, 1892, without negligence on his part, but because of the gross carelessness of defendant, he was billed while in the discharge of his duty as coupler in said yard. He worked at night, and had been so employed since Ms connection with defendant. On said date he cam© on duty as usual, and proceeded to perform' the duties assigned to him. At a point about twenty-five yards north of defendant’s depot is a sidetrack upon which cars are placed at a transfer-shed. This track runs north and south, passes by the depot, and connects with a series of tracks south of the depot. Some few feet south of said transfer-shed, the space between tbe rails of this side-track had been floored with heavy oak pl'ank, fastened so as to leave no space 'between the planks except near the rails on the inside of the rails, for the flange of the car-wheels to run in, but entirely too wide for tMs purpose. Ordinary care required defendant to see that this flooring was properly done. A few feet south of tbe point where her husband was killed, these planks had been sawed off square at the ends; some of them were longer than others; from the top of the planks where they had been sawed off to the ties upon which the plank were fastened left a fall or step-off of three or four inches. .Some time during the day of said June 4th, cars bad been left upon this track, and the south end of the car furthest south was stopped a few inches south of and beyond the point where tbe plank were sawed off, so that the ends of these plank extended up a short distance under this car. About eight or nine o’clock on the night of June 4th, 1892, the duties of her husband called him to couple this car to others attached to 'the switch-engine. As the last named cars came back he went in to make the coupling, which he succeeded in doing. The momentum with which tbe cars came back .against tbe stationary car, forced [it] beyond tbe point where tbe ends of tbe plank were, while be was between tbe oars. The step-off at tbe end of the plank caused him to lose his footing and fall, and before- he could extricate himself the oars passed over him, killing him. He went in to make tire coupling from the west side of the cars. The brake-beam upon the moving car which was next to and approaching the stationary Car, 'and to which he was to couple, had a bolt sticking out through the beam, tire point of which extended through land beyond the beam three or four inches, in the direction where he had to stand to make the coupling. This holt was exposed and had no tap on it; and from the position in which his body was found, this bolt, or the space between the plank and the rail above described, must have caught and held his feet and legs, as his head was in the direction of the engine and in the opposite direction from that in which the engine and ears were moving. Having and leaving said space between the rails -and plank, it was gross carelessness to have said holt in the place it was, exposed and sticking out as it was, without a tap on it. It was gross carelessness on the part of defendant to leave the ends of the plank sawed off and in the condition in which they were. Ordinary prudence required that the ends of the plank should have been sloped or beveled, or 'that dirt be packed at the ends and sloped, thus furnishing him a reasonably safe place in which to perform the duties assigned him, as in law it was bound to do. The brake-beam was too low; if it had been of the proper and usual'height, after he was caught and caused to fall it would have passed over him, but it was so low as to catch and strip his clothing up over Ms head. Because he worked at night he had no knowledge of the condition of the plank, brake-beam and bolt, 'and thus when killed was in the strict line of Ms duty 'and without fault or negligence. By amendment it is alleged, that the reason why the brakebeam was too low was, that a nut on top of a rod which ran through the brakebeam to hold it up was loose, and had by moving down on the bolt caused the beam to come down too low; and that the usual, proper and ordinary height of a brake-beam is eight inches above the rail, while the brakebeam on the car that passed over Eslinger was but four inches above the rail.

Opinion:
Simmons, C. J.
The plaintiff's evidence made no stronger case at the last trial than at the trial under review when the case was before this court at the March term, 1895. It was then held that she was not entitled to a recovery, and consequently there was no error at the next hearing in granting a nonsuit. The amendment to the declaration alleging an additional ground of negligence against the defendant was not sufficiently supported by evidence to authorize a recovery on that ground.
Judgment affirmed.