Case Name: Vickery v. The Central Railroad & Banking Company
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1892-05-25
Citations: 89 Ga. 365
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vickery v. The Central Railroad & Banking Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
Vickery v. The Central Railroad & Banking Company.
It does not affirmatively appear that the trial court erred in granting a second new trial.
May 25, 1892.
New trial. Railroads. Damages. Negligence. Before Judge Harden. City court of Savannah. November term, 1891.
Action by Vickery against the railroad company for damages. He was employed by that company as a watchman at a crossing. ■ He was sitting on a pile of rocks at the crossing, five or six feet from the track, with his head about on a level with the cylinder of a passing locomotive. The cylinder-cocks were suddenly -opened, blowing off steam and causing cinders which were lying on the ground to fly, one being forcibly blown into his ear. He was not, though he could have been, seen by the engineer, and he could have seen the engine approaching for quite a distance. He was thrown down and rendered pai’tly unconscious for a short time. Afterwards he endured much suffering, and according to the testimony in his behalf he was permanently injured, being partly paralyzed, and his hearing and eyesight being seriously affected. He was thirty years old at the time of the injury, and earned $1.40 per day. The first trial resulted in a verdict in his favor for $2,500. A new trial was granted, on which the jury found for him $6,000. The defendant again moved for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and was excessive; and that the court should have granted a nonsuit on its motion. The judge granted another new trial, stating that he did not believe the plaintiff was entitled to recover, but if so, the verdict, in his judgment, was not excessive, provided the plaintiff’s condition was as bad as his appearance indicated and was the result of an accident for which the defendant was responsible. The plaintiff-excepted.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed.
O'Connor & O'Byrne, for plaintiff.
Lawton & Cunningham, for defendant.