Case Name: Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Dutton
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1910-06-14
Citations: 7 Ga. App. 755
Docket Number: 2027
Parties: Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Dutton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 755–755

Head Matter:
2027.
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Dutton.
Action for damages; from city eoiirt of Sylvania — Judge Boy-kin. June 9, 1909.
Submitted November 17, 1909.
Decided June 14, 1910.
Dutton obtained a verdict for $250, on account of the locomotive engineer’s failure or refusal to stop the passenger-tfaia at a station where such trains were accustomed to stop when a signal flag was displayed. The occasion was in daylight; the track was straight for a long distance as the train approached, and there was nothing to prevent the engineer from seeing the flag; and Dutton, to whom the station agent had sold a ticket, was standing by the track, bag in hand, waiting to step on the train when it should stop. As it ran by at high speed the station agent, looking at the engineer, pointed to the flag, and the engineer said something that could not be heard. He testified that he had nothing against Dutton, and that there was no reason why he shdtlld not have stopped the train if he had seen the flag displayed; A motion foi new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contráry to law and. evidence, and was excessive, was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
B. L. Gamble, for plaintiff in error.
•/. C. Hollingsworth, E. X. Overstreet, contra.

Opinion:
Hill, C. J.
1. "A railroad company is bound to stop its pásseilger-trains in response to proper signals at a flag-station at which it is in the habit of stopping/ trains of that character." Southern Ry. Co. v. Wallis, 133 Ga. 553 (66 S. E. 370).
2. There was evidence from which the jury might reasonably have inferred that the failure of the engineer to stop the train at the flag-station was due to wilfulness, wantonness, or an entire indifference to cohsequences; and therefore we can not say that the verdict is excessive. Central Ry. Co. v. Sowell, 3 Ga. App. 142 (59 S. E. 323). Judgment affirmed.