Chapter LXX: Section 2901: of the Georgia Civil Code is as follows (3)

Little _v._ Hackett, 116 U. S. 366; Baltimore R. Co. _v._ Friel, (C.
C. A.) 77 Fed. 126; Georgia R. Co. _v._ Hughes, 87 Ala. 610; Little
Rock R. Co. _v._ Harrell, 58 Ark. 454; Thompson _v._ Los Angeles R.
Co., 165 Cal. 748; Fujise _v._ Los Angeles R. Co., 12 Cal. App. 207;
Woodley _v._ Baltimore R. Co., 19 D. C. 542; Baltimore R. Co. _v._
Adams, 10 App. D. C. 97; Chicago R. Co. _v._ Hines, 183 Ill. 482;
Chicago R. Co. _v._ Leach, 215 Ill. 184; Pittsburgh R. Co. _v._
Spencer, 98 Ind. 186; Miller _v._ Louisville R. Co., 128 Ind. 97;
Chicago R. Co. _v._ Groves, 56 Kan. 601; Louisville R. Co. _v._ Case,
9 Bush, 728; Louisville R. Co. _v._ Molloy, 122 Ky. 219; Holzab _v._
New Orleans R. Co., 38 La. Ann. 185; Roby _v._ Kansas City R. Co., 130
La. 880; Consolidated Gas Co. _v._ Getty, 96 Md. 683; Cuddy _v._ Horn,
46 Mich. 596; Galloway _v._ Detroit Ry., 168 Mich. 343; Flaherty _v._
Minneapolis R. Co., 39 Minn. 328; Colton _v._ Willmar R. Co., 99 Minn.
366; Gulf R. Co. _v._ Barnes, 94 Miss. 484; Becke _v._ Missouri R.
Co., 102 Mo. 544; Sluder _v._ St. Louis Transit Co., 189 Mo. 107;
Bennett _v._ New Jersey R. Co., 36 N. J. Law, 225; New York R. Co.
_v._ Steinbrenner, 47 N. J. Law, 161; Colegrove _v._ New York R. Co.,
20 N. Y. 492; Webster _v._ Hudson R. Co., 38 N. Y. 260; Arctic Fire
Ins. Co. _v._ Austin, 69 N. Y. 470; Lewis _v._ Long Island R. Co., 162
N. Y. 52; Ward _v._ International R. Co., 206 N. Y. 83; Crampton _v._
Ivie, 124 N. C. 591; Covington Transfer Co. _v._ Kelly, 36 Ohio St.
86; Chickasha R. Co. _v._ Marshall, 43 Okl. 192; Dean _v._
Pennsylvania R. Co., 129 Pa. St. 514; Bunting _v._ Hogsett, 139 Pa.
St. 363; Markham _v._ Houston Navigation Co., 73 Tex. 247; Gulf R. Co.
_v._ Pendry, 87 Tex. 553; New York R. Co. _v._ Cooper, 85 Va. 939;
Croft _v._ Northwestern Steamship Co., 20 Wash. 175 _Accord_.

Footnote 230:

Statement abridged. Greater part of opinion omitted.

Footnote 231:

Elyton Land Co. _v._ Mingea, 89 Ala. 521; Birmingham R. Co. _v._
Baker, 132 Ala. 507; Hot Springs R. Co. _v._ Hildreth, 72 Ark. 572;
Farley _v._ Wilmington R. Co., 3 Pennewill 581; Porter _v._
Jacksonville Electric Co., 64 Fla. 409; Roach _v._ Western R. Co., 93
Ga. 785; West Chicago R. Co. _v._ Dougherty, 209 Ill. 241; Nonn _v._
Chicago R. Co., 232 Ill. 378; Yeates _v._ Illinois R. Co., 241 Ill.
205; Cincinnati R. Co. _v._ Cook, 44 Ind. App. 303; Larkin _v._
Burlington R. Co., 85 Ia. 492; Withey _v._ Fowler, 164 Ia. 377; City
_v._ Hatch, 57 Kan. 57; Williams _v._ Withington, 88 Kan. 809; City
_v._ Bott, 151 Ky. 578; State _v._ Boston R. Co., 80 Me. 430; Denis
_v._ Lewiston R. Co., 104 Me. 39; Philadelphia R. Co. _v._ Hogeland,
66 Md. 149; United Railways _v._ Biedler, 98 Md. 564; Randolph _v._
O’Riordan, 155 Mass. 331; McKernan _v._ Detroit R. Co., 138 Mich. 519;
Follman _v._ City, 35 Minn. 522; Dickson _v._ Missouri R. Co., 104 Mo.
491; Petersen _v._ St. Louis Transit Co., 199 Mo. 331; Farrar _v._
Metropolitan R. Co., 249 Mo. 210; Loso _v._ County, 77 Neb. 466; Noyes
_v._ Town, 64 N. H. 361; Noonan _v._ Consolidated Traction Co., 64 N.
J. Law, 579; Dyer _v._ Erie R. Co., 71 N. Y. 228; Geary _v._
Metropolitan R. Co., 84 App. Div. 514; Robinson _v._ Metropolitan R.
Co., 91 App. Div. 158; Ward _v._ Brooklyn R. Co., 119 App. Div. 487;
Morris _v._ Metropolitan R. Co., 63 App. Div. 78; Terwilliger _v._
Long Island R. Co., 152 App. Div. 168; Kammerdiener _v._ Rayburn, 233
Pa. St. 328; Sieb _v._ Central Traction Co., 47 Pa. Super. Ct. 228;
Wilson _v._ Puget Sound R. Co., 52 Wash. 522 _Accord_.

See McLaughlin _v._ Pittsburgh R. Co., 252 Pa. St. 32.

Footnote 232:

Davis _v._ Chicago R. Co., (C. C. A.) 159 Fed. 10; Rebillard _v._
Minneapolis R. Co., 216 Fed. 503; Ewans _v._ Wilmington R. Co., 7
Pennewill 458; Brannen _v._ Kokomo Road Co., 115 Ind. 115; Holden _v._
Missouri R. Co., 177 Mo. 456; Brickell _v._ New York R. Co., 120 N. Y.
290; Caminez _v._ Brooklyn R. Co., 127 App. Div. 138; Doctoroff _v._
Metropolitan R. Co., 55 Misc. 215; Southern R. Co. _v._ Jones, 118 Va.
685; Wilson _v._ Puget Sound R. Co., 52 Wash. 522; Warth _v._ Jackson
County Court, 71 W. Va. 184 _Accord_.

See Atlantic R. Co. _v._ Ironmonger, 95 Va. 625.

Footnote 233:

City _v._ Thuis, 28 Ind. App. 523; Bush _v._ Union R. Co., 62 Kan.
709; Yarnold _v._ Bowers, 186 Mass. 396; Peabody _v._ Haverhill R.
Co., 200 Mass. 277; Lundergan _v._ New York R. Co., 203 Mass. 460;
Fogg _v._ New York R. Co., 223 Mass. 444; Marsh _v._ Kansas City R.
Co., 104 Mo. App. 577; Meenagh _v._ Buckmaster, 26 App. Div. 451;
Cunningham _v._ Erie R. Co., 137 App. Div. 506 _Accord_.

_Driver known to be incompetent_, see: Cahill _v._ Cincinnati R. Co.,
92 Ky. 345.

_Passenger unknown to driver_, see: Cincinnati R. Co. _v._ Wright, 54
Ohio St. 181.

Footnote 234:

Pyle _v._ Clark, (C. C. A.) 79 Fed. 744; Dale _v._ Denver Tramway Co.,
(C. C. A.) 173 Fed. 787; North Alabama Traction Co. _v._ Thomas, 164
Ala. 191; Lininger _v._ San Francisco R. Co., 18 Cal. App. 411;
Tonsley _v._ Pacific Electric Co., 166 Cal. 457; Parmenter _v._
McDougall, 172 Cal. 306; Denver Tramway Co. _v._ Armstrong, 21 Col.
App. 640; Sampson _v._ Wilson, 89 Conn. 707; Metropolitan R. Co. _v._
Powell, 89 Ga. 601; Southern R. Co. _v._ King, 128 Ga. 383: Chicago R.
Co. _v._ Condon, 121 Ill. App. 440; Dudley _v._ Peoria R. Co., 153
Ill. App. 619; Town _v._ Musgrove, 116 Ind. 121; Lake Shore R. Co.
_v._ Boyts, 16 Ind. App. 640; Nisbet _v._ Town, 75 Ia. 314; Hubbard
_v._ Bartholomew, 163 Ia. 58; Corley _v._ Atchison R. Co., 90 Kan. 70;
Bevis _v._ Vanceburg Tel. Co., 121 Ky. 177; Illinois R. Co. _v._
Wilkins, 149 Ky. 35; Sykes _v._ Maine R. Co., 111 Me. 182; United R.
Co. _v._ Cram, 123 Md. 332; Chadbourne _v._ Springfield R. Co., 199
Mass. 574; Ingalls _v._ Lexington R. Co., 205 Mass. 73; Alabama R. Co.
_v._ Davis, 69 Miss. 444; Mittelsdorfer _v._ West Jersey R. Co., 77 N.
J. Law, 698; Weber _v._ Philadelphia R. Co., 88 N. J. Law, 398;
Robinson _v._ New York R. Co., 66 N. Y. 11; Noakes _v._ New York R.
Co., 121 App. Div. 716; Zimmerman _v._ Union R. Co., 28 App. Div. 445;
Mack _v._ Town, 98 App. Div. 577; Jerome _v._ Hawley, 147 App. Div.
475; Duval _v._ Atlantic R. Co., 134 N. C. 331; Ouverson _v._ City, 5
N. D. 281; Toledo R. Co. _v._ Mayers, 93 Ohio St. 304; Tonseth _v._
Portland R. Co., 70 Or. 341; Little _v._ Central Tel. Co., 213 Pa. St.
229; Walsh _v._ Altoona R. Co., 232 Pa. St. 479; Wachsmith _v._
Baltimore R. Co., 233 Pa. St. 465; Trumbower _v._ Lehigh Transit Co.,
235 Pa. St. 397; Hermann _v._ Rhode Island Co., 36 R. I. 447; Latimer
_v._ County, 95 S. C. 187; Turnpike Co. _v._ Yates, 108 Tenn. 428;
Missouri R. Co. _v._ Rogers, 91 Tex. 52; Lochhead _v._ Jensen, 42 Utah
99; Atwood _v._ Utah R. Co., 44 Utah 366 _Accord_.

Kneeshaw _v._ Detroit R. Co., 169 Mich. 697; Colborne _v._ United R.
Co., 177 Mich. 139; Granger _v._ Farrant, 179 Mich. 19 (but compare
Hampel _v._ Detroit R. Co., 138 Mich. 1); Whittaker _v._ City, 14
Mont. 124; Omaha R. Co. _v._ Talbot, 48 Neb. 627; Prideaux _v._. City,
43 Wis. 513; Otis _v._ Town, 47 Wis. 422; Ritger _v._ City, 99 Wis.
190; Lightfoot _v._ Winnebago Traction Co., 123 Wis. 479; Lauson _v._
Town, 141 Wis. 57 _Contra_.

As to whether the negligence of an agent or servant will be imputed to
a principal or employer not personally culpable, see also: Siegel _v._
Norton, 209 Ill. 201; Moore _v._ Stetson, 96 Me. 197; Bjbjian _v._
Woonsocket Rubber Co., 164 Mass. 214; Philip _v._ Heraty, 135 Mich.
446; Fero _v._ Buffalo R. Co., 22 N. Y. 209.

_Contributory negligence of agent or servant in sole charge of the
property injured_, see: Kennedy _v._ Alton Traction Co., 180 Ill. App.
146; Toledo R. Co. _v._ Goddard, 25 Ind. 185; Louisville R. Co. _v._
Stommel, 126 Ind. 35; Young _v._ County, 137 Ia. 515; Dunn _v._ Old
Colony R. Co., 186 Mass. 316; La Riviere _v._ Pemberton, 46 Minn. 5;
Johnson _v._ Atchison R. Co., 117 Mo. App. 308; Page _v._ Hodge, 63 N.
H. 610; Smith _v._ New York R. Co., 4 App. Div. 493; Puterbaugh _v._
Reasor, 9 Ohio St. 484; Hawley _v._ Sumpter R. Co., 49 Or. 509.
Compare Gress _v._ Philadelphia R. Co., 228 Pa. St. 482 (care of
injured child delegated to another child, whose negligence
contributed).

As to when negligence of the servant is imputed to the master, see
also: Sims _v._ Macon R. Co., 28 Ga. 93 (slave); Read _v._ City, 115
Ga. 366; Potter _v._ Ft. Wayne Traction Co., 43 Ind. App. 427; City
_v._ Bott, 151 Ky. 578; Markowitz _v._ Metropolitan R. Co., 186 Mo.
350; Moon _v._ St. Louis Transit Co., 237 Mo. 425; Reed _v._
Metropolitan R. Co., 58 App. Div. 87; Wood _v._ Coney Island R. Co.,
133 App. Div. 270; Crampton _v._ Ivie, 126 N. C. 894. Compare Snyder
Ice Co. _v._ Bowron, (Tex. Civ. App.) 156 S. W. 550.

_Whether husband’s negligence will be imputed to the wife_, see:
McFadden _v._ Santa Ana R. Co., 87 Cal. 464; Basler _v._ Sacramento
Gas Co., 158 Cal. 514; Joliet _v._ Seward, 86 Ill. 402; Yahn _v._
Ottumwa, 60 Ia. 429 (see also Nesbit _v._ Garner, 75 Ia. 314; Willfong
_v._ Omaha R. Co., 116 Ia. 548); Denton _v._ Missouri R. Co., 90 Kan.
51; Livingston _v._ Philley, 155 Ky. 224; Ploetz _v._ Holt, 124 Minn.
169; Moon _v._ St. Louis Transit Co., 237 Mo. 425; Johnson _v._
Springfield Traction Co., 176 Mo. App. 174; Hajsek _v._ Chicago R.
Co., 68 Neb. 539, 5 Neb. Unoff. 67; Pennsylvania R. Co. _v._
Goodenough, 55 N. J. Law, 577; Horandt _v._ Central R. Co., 78 N. J.
Law, 190; Carlisle _v._ Sheldon, 38 Vt. 440.

_Imputed negligence as between fellow servants_, see: Nonn _v._
Chicago R. Co., 232 Ill. 378; Ford _v._ Hine, 237 Ill. 463; Paducah
Traction Co. _v._ Sine, (Ky.) 111 S. W. 356; City _v._ Heitkemper, 169
Ky. 167; Earp _v._ Phelps, 120 Md. 282; Siever _v._ Pittsburgh R. Co.,
252 Pa. St. 1; Landry _v._ Great Northern R. Co., 152 Wis. 379;
Sommerfeld _v._ Chicago R. Co., 155 Wis. 102.

_Whether bailor barred by contributory negligence of bailee_, see:
Svea Ins. Co. _v._ Vicksburgh R. Co., 153 Fed. 774; Henderson _v._
Chicago R. Co., 170 Ill. App. 616; Welty _v._ Indianapolis R. Co., 105
Ind. 55; Illinois R. Co. _v._ Sims, 77 Miss. 325; Spelman _v._ Delano,
177 Mo. App. 28; Forks Township _v._ King, 84 Pa. St. 230; Gibson _v._
Bessemer R. Co., 226 Pa. St. 198; Texas R. Co. _v._ Tankersley, 63
Tex. 57.

_Consignor and consignee_, see McCarthy _v._ Louisville R. Co., 102
Ala. 193.

_Lessor and lessee_, see Higgins _v._ Los Angeles Gas Co., 159 Cal.
651; Contos _v._ Jamison, 81 S. C. 488.

Footnote 235:

See Alabama R. Co. _v._ Hanbury, 161 Ala. 358; Louisville R. Co. _v._
Armstrong, 127 Ky. 367; Beaucage _v._ Mercer, 206 Mass. 492; Ward _v._
Meads, 114 Minn. 18; Schron _v._ Staten Island R. Co., 16 App. Div.
11; Christopherson _v._ Minneapolis R. Co., 28 N. D. 128; Wentworth
_v._ Town, 90 Vt. 60; Washington R. Co. _v._ Zell, 118 Va. 755.

According to the decision in Shindelus _v._ St. Paul City R. Co., 80
Minn. 364, if any of the young men of the party in the Koplitz case
had sued the city, the negligence of Gibbons would have been imputed
to them.

Compare Laurence _v._ Sioux City, 172 Ia. 320; Scheib _v._ New York R.
Co., 115 App. Div. 578; Kansas City R. Co. _v._ Durrett, (Tex. Civ.
App.) 187 S. W. 427.

Footnote 236:

Statement abridged. Arguments omitted; also portions of opinion.

Footnote 237:

Chicago R. Co. _v._ Kowalski, (C. C. A.) 92 Fed. 310; Pratt Coal Co.
_v._ Brawley, 83 Ala. 371; St. Louis R. Co. _v._ Rexroad, 59 Ark. 180;
Daley _v._ Norwich R. Co., 26 Conn. 591; Jacksonville Electric Co.
_v._ Adams, 50 Fla. 429; Ferguson _v._ Columbus R. Co., 77 Ga. 102;
Chicago R. Co. _v._ Wilcox, 138 Ill. 370; Evansville _v._ Senhenn, 151
Ind. 42 (overruling earlier cases _contra_); Ives _v._ Welden, 114 Ia.
476; Union R. Co. _v._ Young, 57 Kan. 168 (older cases _contra_);
South Covington R. Co. _v._ Herrklotz, 104 Ky. 400; Westerfield _v._
Levis, 43 La. Ann. 63; Shippy _v._ Au Sable, 85 Mich. 280; Mattson
_v._ Minnesota R. Co., 95 Minn. 477 (overruling older cases _contra_);
Westbrook _v._ Mobile R. Co., 66 Miss. 560; Winters _v._ Kansas City
R. Co., 99 Mo. 509; Neff _v._ City, 213 Mo. 350; Huff _v._ Ames, 16
Neb. 139; Warren _v._ Manchester R. Co., 70 N. H. 352; Bottoms _v._
Seaboard R. Co., 114 N. C. 699; Bellefontaine R. Co. _v._ Snyder, 18
Ohio St. 399; Erie R. Co. _v._ Schuster, 113 Pa. St. 412; Whirley _v._
Whiteman, 1 Head, 610; Galveston R. Co. _v._ Moore, 59 Tex. 64;
Robinson _v._ Cone, 22 Vt. 213; Norfolk R. Co. _v._ Ormsby, 27 Grat.
455; Dicken _v._ Liverpool Coal Co., 41 W. Va. 511 _Accord_.

Meeks _v._ So. Pac. R. Co., 52 Cal. 602; O’Brien _v._ McGlinchy, 68
Me. 552; Baltimore R. Co. _v._ McDonnell, 43 Md. 534; Wright _v._
Malden R. Co., 4 All. 283; Cotter _v._ Lynn R. Co., 180 Mass. 145 (but
see Mass. Acts 1914, c. 553); Hartfield _v._ Roper, 21 Wend. 615;
Parishi _v._ Eden, 62 Wis. 272; Kuchler _v._ Milwaukee Electric Co.,
157 Wis. 107 _Contra_.

As to the limits of the rule in the jurisdictions that follow
Hartfield _v._ Roper, see McNeil _v._ Boston Ice Co., 173 Mass. 570;
O’Brien _v._ McGlinchy, 68 Me. 552; Ihl _v._ Forty-Second Street
Ferry, 47 N. Y. 317; McGarry _v._ Loomis, 63 N. Y. 104.

Footnote 238:

Savannah Electric Co. _v._ Dixon, (Ga.) 89 S. E. 373; Smith _v._
Marion Bottle Co., 84 Kan. 551 _Accord_.

Footnote 239:

At common law, no civil action could be maintained for wrongfully
causing the death of a human being. Following the English act of 1846,
known as Lord Campbell’s Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93) statutes in all
jurisdictions now provide an action for the benefit of specified
relatives of a deceased person against one who tortiously caused his
death. In Tiffany, Death by Wrongful Act, 2 Edition, 1913, these
statutes are printed in full in the appendix. The book also contains
an analytical table of the statutes.

Sometimes the relatives are authorized to sue in person; while in
other statutes it is provided that the action shall be brought by an
administrator of the estate of the deceased. But, even under the
latter class of statutes, the sum recovered does not usually become a
part of the general assets of the estate available for the payment of
creditors (unless, perhaps, in the absence of any relatives). In some
instances the statute provides that an action can be brought only in
case the person killed could have maintained an action if death had
not ensued. But, even where the statute does not contain an explicit
provision of the above nature, the courts generally hold that
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased bars the statutory
action. The question remains: Will the contributory negligence of the
sole beneficiary bar the action, either where he is personally
plaintiff, or where he is plaintiff in his capacity as administrator
of the deceased, or where the plaintiff is a third person suing in the
capacity of administrator?

The statutes of a few states may, perhaps, be construed as proceeding
upon the theory that a right of action is vested in the deceased, and
that provision is now made for the survival of such right of action.

Footnote 240:

Wymore _v._ Mahaska County, 78 Ia. 396. The material provisions of the
statute involved in that case were:—