115 Ga. 1020 | Ga. | 1902
1. Even if, under the facts of this case, the railway company was' under a legal duty, in approaching the point where the plaintiff’s child was struck by its train, to maintain a lookout, yet as the evidence demanded a finding that the servants of the company fully complied with this requirement, a charge of the court to the effect that the company was under no duty ' to take precautions to prevent killing the child until its presence on the track
2. It was in the present case proper to instruct the jury that the omission by a railway engineer to comply with the statutory requirements as to giving signals and checking the speed of his train in approaching a public crossing was not, relatively to the plaintiff-’s child, an act of negligence.
S. The evidence fully warranted the verdict in behalf of the defendant company, and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.