47 Ga. App. 727 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1933
Leroy Baxter brought suit for damages against the Georgia Power & Light Company because of the death of his
The defendant contends that the verdict was not authorized by the evidence. It is our opinion that the plaintiff failed to prove his case as laid. The evidence did not show that the water furnished by the defendant, which the plaintiff’s wife drank, ever contained any typhoid germs. Twelve or fifteen other persons lived at the boarding house where the plaintiff and his wife lived, and she was the only one that contracted typhoid fever. There was no evidence that authorized the jury to find that the water in the reservoir or cistern had become contaminated and polluted with typhoid germs. It was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove his case, either by direct or by circumstantial evidence; and, from a careful review of the evidence in the case, we do not think that he has done this. While the evidence shows that the plaintiff’s wife had typhoid fever, and that she died shortly after an abortion was produced upon her, which the attending physician testified contributed to her death, still it in no way shows that the water which she drank was polluted with these germs or that she contracted typhoid fever from drinking water furnished by the defendant company. The entire evidence leaves the cause of the fever a mere supposition. From the evidence it appeared that typhoid fever is caused by a germ-typhoid bacillus, which may be communicated to the human system through drinking water or milk or eating contaminated food, or by flies lighting on fecal matter and then coming in contact with food, milk, or water; and it also appeared that the source could rarely, if ever, be determined. The evidence shows that there were a number of surface toilets in the city, which are fertile sources for typhoid germs; and it shows also that the sewerage system at the boarding house had given way at the joints where it was put together with cement instead of lead, and that this had allowed the sewage to leak and seep out and cause wet places under the boarding house. Whether
After a careful study and consideration of the evidence in this case, we are forced to the conclusion that a verdict in favor of the plaintiff is unauthorized, and the trial judge erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.