Hambright v. Western & Atlantic Railroad
Hambright v. Western and Atlantic Railroad Company
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Lewis, J.
1. The affirmative and positive testimony of witnesses as to the actual facts of a particular occurrence can not be overcome by testimony which is negative in character, or consists of mere opinions.
2. As to a trespasser walking upon the track of a railroad, the duty of observing ordinary care and diligence for his protection does not devolve upon the company’s servants in charge of a train until his presence upon the track becomes known to them. Atlanta Ry. Co. v. Leach, 91 Ga. 419 ; Atlanta Ry. Co. v. Gravitt, 93 Ga. 369 .
3. Applying the above rules to the evidence in the present case, it is manifest that the plaintiff was not entitled to a recovery, and the court, therefore, did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.
Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Catoosa superior court. February term, 1900. Seaborn Wright, W. H. Odell, and Shumate & Maddox, for plaintiff. Payne & Tye and R. J. & J. McCamy, for defendant.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.