Court Opinion

ID: 9853706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:52:46.866146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:01.287578
License: Public Domain

Woerill, J.
(Concurring specially on rehearing.) In addition to concurring in the judgment of reversal because of the errors in the charge of the court, I am of the further opinion that the evidence demanded a verdict for the defendant carrier, to demonstrate which I desire to set forth the following evidence in addition to that mentioned in the statement of facts herein-before.
The bales of cotton waste had been processed and packed by the plaintiff on the 27th and 28th of December, 1949, and the bill of lading was signed about 3 p. m. on the last named date. The car, loaded and sealed, was pulled out by the Central of Georgia Railway Company, and by it delivered to the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company at 11:45 p.m. on December 28, 1949. It was included in a train which left Atlanta, Georgia, in the early evening of December 30, 1949, and at about 3 a.m. on December 31, 1949, when the car reached Whitmire, South Carolina, fire was discovered therein by one of the brakemen on the train who noticed a reflection of light or fire on the cross-ties as the car passed him during a switching operation. The car was disconnected from the train and the seals, which had remained intact, were broken on the doors and the fire quenched by the fire department of Whitmire. There was evidence for the plaintiff that there was no fire about its premises for 24 hours before and after the packing of the bales of waste, according to records kept by the corporation, no record being made unless there is a fire, and its shipping clerk testified that he did not see any indication, on inspection, that any of the bales had been burned or had fire therein and that he made a smell test and there was no evidence, by such means, of fire packing. The car in which the waste was loaded had a steel top and steel sides and the doors were “very similar to weather-stripped” doors, very tight. The flooring was double flooring, tongue and groove, and was approximately two inches in thickness. Fire had consumed or partly destroyed several bales of the waste, and one bale in particular was testified to as having been burned from the inside outwardly. The fire had burned a place in the floor *448of the car and was oval in shape and had its longest dimension running across the car from side to side and was about the size of a man’s body in length and breadth. The car had been inspected numerous times: On the morning of December 30th when it was found to be in good condition with no evidence of fire; on the evening of the 30th before it left the Atlanta area; prior to 12:10 a. m. on December 31st at Abbeville, South Carolina ; at about 12:35 at Greenwood, South Carolina, and at about 2:30 a.m. at Clinton, South Carolina. The train had been pulled entirely by Diesel operation, and only one train using a steam engine passed it, and there was no evidence that it was emitting sparks or flame such as might tend to start a fire on the inside of the car containing the waste, if indeed it could penetrate it, and especially the inside of a bale of waste. There was considerable speculation or conjecture on the part of so-called expert witnesses for both sides as to what time might have elapsed before a fire-packed bale might ignite others in the shipment, but there was no positive testimony showing when or how the fire originated. An expert witness of many years’ experience in explosives and investigation of fire in cotton and cotton waste testified that in his opinion the fire in question was caused by a fire-packed bale which he examined and described in detail in court, and which had burned from the inside out, there having been more burning on the inside than on the outside. Another witness testified that this bale had burned from the inside to the outside. While a witness for the plaintiff testified that the aforementioned expert, when examining the bales of cotton waste after they had been returned to East Point, Georgia, stated that “you couldn’t tell any of the bales were fire-packed,” there was no contradiction whatever that the bale had burned from the inside to the outside, where the burning was less.
The evidence as to the delivery of the cotton waste made out a prima facie case against the defendant. However, the evidence for the defendant conclusively showed freedom from negligence. Without establishing responsibility upon the defendant carrier after it had shifted the burden of evidence to the plaintiff, the case against it must necessarily fall. For a jury to find a verdict against the defendant on the theory that the bales, or one of them, had been ignited by a spark or sparks from a passing *449steam engine, when there was no evidence that sparks were being emitted, and, furthermore, when the freight car in question was metal on its top and sides and its doors tightly fitting and sealed, would be to rely upon inferences too imaginary and fanciful to be upheld. Compare Davis v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 73 Fed. 2d, 330, 332. “Evidence is said to be that which demonstrates and makes clear a question of fact at issue. Sufficient evidence is such as is satisfactory to the purpose— satisfactory in its legal sense,—such as satisfies the law as to the existence of a given fact; and if such evidence of the fact be not submitted, then the evidence may be fairly said to be insufficient to sustain a verdict based thereon.” Mallery v. Young, 94 Ga. 804, 807 (22 S. E. 142). The evidence demanded, in my opinion, a verdict for the defendant carrier. It conclusively showed that it was free from negligence at all times, and there was no probative testimony connecting it with the fire before or after it had exculpated itself from negligence, but, on the contrary, a finding was demanded that the general fire was caused by the one especial “fire-packed” bale hereinabove described. If it be said that there was a conflict in the testimony as to whether or not the bale was “fire-packed,” the answer is that human testimony can not overcome physical facts, and to assert that it was not “fire-packed” is to contend against the laws of physics and the common experiences of men as to the action of fire upon cotton. It was uncontroverted here that the particular bale had burned from the inside to the outside with less burning on the surface. See, on the subject of the invincibility of physical laws, the interesting discussion by Judge Powell in Rome Railway & Light Co. v. Keel, 3 Ga. App. 769 (60 S. E. 468), and also see Atlantic & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Clute, 3 Ga. App. 508 (60 S. E. 277). Fire simply does not, on coming in contact with cotton or' cotton waste, penetrate to the. interior of the bale to the neglect of the exterior and there burn a portion larger than the exit or mouth of the sluice or funnel. It is unnecessary to go into the details of the phenomenon. For a case strikingly similar on its facts see Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Downs, Court of Civil Appeals of Dallas, Texas, 70 S. W. 2d, 318. In the decision of the Texas court in a cotton State, it was said: “Cotton is the most important commodity *450in this' State. Upon being ginned, it is pressed into bales of such density and is a commodity of such nature that fire originating upon the surface of such bale will not penetrate into and core the center. It will not burn a hole 12 or 15 inches deep to the center, in a funnel or pitcher shape, and at the same time do only superficial damage to the other portions of the bale. This innate nature of cotton is a matter of which courts may well take judicial knowledge. In our opinion, such condition indicates as strongly, as circumstances can that the fire began and burned longer where the hole was larger, and forged to the outside, where the hole was smaller. This is clearly what is termed a ‘fire-packed’ bale of cotton. Thus, viewing the testimony, we are of the opinion that reasonable minds cannot differ as to the cause of the fire. . . Obviously, fire packed in a bale of cotton is a defect or patent infirmity of the commodity, and such loss or damage resulting therefrom is not actionable.”
,-If I am correct in the opinion that a verdict was demanded for the defendant carrier, then there would seem to be no need to rule on the objections to the charge of the court, but the judgment should be reversed on the general grounds of the motion for new trial.