TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Young

Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Young, 93 S.E. 29 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 18, 1917
Docket
No. 8033
Judges
Wade
Citations
93 S.E. 2920 Ga. App. 2911917 Ga. App. LEXIS 869
Headnotes
A heavy two-wheeled truck used for moving freight in a depot was not so attractive as a- plaything for children and so dangerous in its nature as to come within the rule of the “turn-table cases,” and the railway company was not liable for leaving it accessible to a child who was in the habit of playing at the depot and who was injured.by it.
Summary
Action for damages; from McIntosh superior court—Judge Sheppard. March 25, 1916.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wade

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wade, C. J.

1. “One who makes an excavation upon his land is not bound to so guard it as to prevent injury to children who come upon it without his invitation, express or implied, but who are induced to do so merely by the alluring attractiveness of the excavation and its surroundings.” Savannah Railway Co. v. Beavers, 113 Ga. 398 ( 39 S. E. 82 , 54 L. R. A. 314). See also O’Connor v. Brucker, 117 Ga. 452 ( 43 S. E. 731 ); Nashville Ry. Co. v. Priest, 117 Ga. 769 ( 45 S. E. 35 ); Southern Ry. Co. v. Chatman, 124 Ga. 1030 ( 53 S. E. 692 , 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 283, 4 Ann. Cas. 675). See generally, Harden v. Ga. R. Co., 3 Ga. App. 344 ( 59 S. E. 1122 ). Under the doctrine laid down in the above-cited eases, a railroad company having at a freight depot an ordinary heavy and' cumbersome two-wheel truck for handling freight, “beyond the strength of petitioner [a man] to handle with ease,” is not chargeable with the consequences arising from an attempt on the part of a child, approximately eight years old at the time, to push or wheel the truck around, notwithstanding his habit of playing around said depot was known to the employees of the railroad company, because of the failure of the railroad company to place the truck inside the depot building, during the absence of its agent in charge of the same, and to secure and lock the doors of the warehouse to prevent any interference with the truck by the child, on the theory that the company was negligent in leaving open, exposed, inseoure, and accessible to the child an attractive plaything which the company should have known, in the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, would attract the child, to his injury and damage. Such a truck is not itself so palpably attractive as a plaything for children, and an implement or thing so dangerous in its *292 nature, as to come within the rule of the "turn-table cases,” and render a railroad company liable for leaving it accessible to the child. See, in this connection, Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Pierce, 145 Ga. 130 ( 88 S. E. 672 ). The-court erred in overruling tlie general demurrer to the petition alleging damages on the state of facts here indicated. What followed was therefore nugatory, and need not be considered.

Judgment reversed.

George and Luhe, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1927: 11929: 11934: 11942: 11960: 11961: 11973: 11981: 119272026peak 1927 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Montega Corp. v. Grooms196 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
  2. Mobley v. City of Monroe140 S.E. 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)
  3. Bridges v. Georgia Power Co.147 S.E. 589 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
  4. Gregory v. Johnson283 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
  5. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. O'Neal172 S.E. 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  6. Martin v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.115 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)

Most recent

  1. Gregory v. Johnson283 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
  2. Montega Corp. v. Grooms196 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. Ct. App. 1973)
  3. Anderson v. B. F. Goodrich Co.119 S.E.2d 603 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
  4. Martin v. Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co.115 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
  5. Hornsby v. Henry22 S.E.2d 326 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)
  6. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. O'Neal172 S.E. 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)

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.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Southern Ry. Co. v. Chatman, 53 S.E. 692 (Ga. 1906) 78
Savannah, Fla. & Western Ry. Co. v. Beavers, 39 S.E. 82 (Ga. 1901) 69
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Pierce, 88 S.E. 672 (Ga. 1916) 22
Harden v. Ga. R.R., 59 S.E. 1122 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908) 21
Nashville, Chattanooga & Saint Louis Ry. Co. v. Priest, 45 S.E. 35 (Ga. 1903) 13
O'Connor v. Brucker, 43 S.E. 731 (Ga. 1903) 42

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list