The trial judge did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Mrs. Kelly Williams and Mrs. Evelyn Starbird filed an action against the Central of Georgia Railway Company for damages.

The petition as amended alleged in substance the following: That petitioners are all of the children of Walter H. Brannen, deceased, who at the time of his death left no wife; that the town of Register, Georgia, is situated in Bulloch County; that it has one paved thoroughfare, which lies generally in a northerly and southerly direction, and is approximately one-half mile in length, with the extreme northern and southern ends on both sides occupied as residences, and in the middle is the business section of the town; that businesses are located on the north and south of defendant's tracks or right-of-way; the sidewalks run parallel with the main thoroughfare, and are unpaved at the point of crossing with defendant's tracks or right-of-way. Said sidewalks are separated from the outer edges of the main thoroughfare by a shallow ditch, about two or three feet wide; that on May 4th, 1956, there existed a crossing on the main street in the town of Register, Georgia, which defendant had previously supplied over its tracks or right-of-way, and had undertaken to keep in repair for the accommodation of the public; that Walter H. Brannen, deceased, on May 4, 1956, was deaf and could not hear without the aid of a hearing device; that the defendant's engine and cars customarily passed through the town of Register each day, traveling west about 11 a. m. and passing through on the return trip about 1:30 p. m.; that defendant's tracks or right-of-way cross over the aforementioned main thoroughfare in a perpendicular manner, but west of the main thoroughfare, the tracks or right-of-way of defendant make a sharp curve with the curve coming to its end at about the point of the crossing; that the main thoroughfare and aforementioned crossing are used at all hours of the day and night, and especially about 5 p. m. by a large number of people traveling in motor vehicles, and the aforementioned sidewalks at the crossing are used by a large number of people at all hours of the day; that on May 4, 1956, at about 5 p. m., petitioners' deceased father was walking in a northerly direction on the sidewalk on the west side of the aforementioned main thoroughfare, and had reached the tracks or right-of-way and had entered upon the tracks when he was struck by the front of defendant's engine, which was traveling or moving in a westerly direction. The impact of the engine hurled him approximately 58 feet, causing his instant death; that defendant's engineer in charge of the engine was negligent in operating the engine and cars at the time and place without regard to the safety of Walter H. Brannen, in that he failed to have the engine and cars under reasonable and proper control, in that, although he had due notice and knowledge that he was coming around a sharp curve and approaching a crossing, he failed to reduce or modify the speed of the engine and cars, which were traveling at a speed of thirty-five miles per hour, or take any steps in respect to the operation thereof which would have prevented the killing of Mr. Brannen; that the defendant's engineer was wilfully and wantonly negligent in that, although he saw the deceased as he approached and entered on the tracks from the south side, and further the engineer saw that the deceased gave no indication that he was aware of the approach of the engine and cars, the engineer

failed to apply the brakes or take any steps to reduce the speed or stop the engine and cars; that the alleged acts of negligence of the defendant did jointly cooperate to cause directly and proximately the damage sustained by the petitioners.

The defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition. The judge overruled the demurrer, and to this ruling the defendant excepts.

The defendant insists that the demurrer should have been sustained because the petition shows that the deceased did not exercise ordinary care for his own safety by using his sense of sight and hearing to determine if it was safe to cross the railroad tracks.

While it is true the deceased may have been negligent in placing himself in the path of the train, this act alone would not debar the plaintiffs of a recovery. The petition alleged that the "engineer saw that the deceased gave no indication that he was aware of the approach of said engine and cars, said engineer failed to apply the brake or take any steps to reduce the speed or stop the engine and cars." Under the doctrine of the last clear chance the petition set forth a cause of action. "The doctrine of last clear chance means that even though a person's own acts may have placed him in a position of peril, yet if another acts or omits to act with knowledge of the peril, and an injury results, the injured person is entitled to recover." 38 Am. Jur. 904, 218.

The trial judge did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition. Lovett v. Sandersville R. Co., 72 Ga. App. 692 (34 S. E. 2d 664).

Judgment affirmed. Felton, C.J., and Nichols, J., concur.