Abercrombie v. Ivey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Abercrombie v. Ivey

200 S.E. 551, 59 Ga. App. 296, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 492

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 5, 1938

Docket26951

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 S.E. 551 (Abercrombie v. Ivey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abercrombie v. Ivey, 200 S.E. 551, 59 Ga. App. 296, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 492 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

This is a suit by a servant against his master for an injury alleged to have been caused by the master’s negligence in failing to furnish to the plaintifE a safe place in which to work and safe machinery to work with, and in failing to warn the plaintifE as to the dangers of the machinery furnished. Other alleged acts of negligence were specified, which, under our view of the case, are not necessary to be set forth. We think that the case is controlled by the decision in Barrow County Cotton Mills v. Farr, 33 Ga. App. 730 (127 S. E. 788), where this court held: “In a suit by a servant for an injury arising from negligence of the master in failing to furnish proper machinery or appliances, or a safe place of work, the servant, to be entitled to recover, must show, among other tilings, that he did not have equal means with his master of knowing of the danger. . . The evidence failing, as a matter of law, to show that, if the defendant was guilty of negligence, the plaintiff did not have equal means of knowing of the alleged negligent defects complained of, the verdict found for the defendant was demanded, and it was error to grant the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff ivas contrary to law and the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error. See also Hines v. Little, 26 Ga. App. 136 (105 S. E. 618); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Dunn, 21 Ga. App. 379 (94 S. E. 661).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., concur. MacIntyre, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is a suit by a servant against his master for an injury alleged to have been caused by the master’s negligence in failing to furnish to the plaintifE a safe place in which to work and safe machinery to work with, and in failing to warn the plaintifE as to the dangers of the machinery furnished. Other alleged acts of negligence were specified, which, under our view of the case, are not necessary to be set forth. We think that the case is controlled by the decision in Barrow County Cotton Mills v. Farr, 33 Ga. App. 730 (127 S. E. 788), where this court held: “In a suit by a servant for an injury arising from negligence of the master in failing to furnish proper machinery or appliances, or a safe place of work, the servant, to be entitled to recover, must show, among other tilings, that he did not have equal means with his master of knowing of the danger. . . The evidence failing, as a matter of law, to show that, if the defendant was guilty of negligence, the plaintiff did not have equal means of knowing of the alleged negligent defects complained of, the verdict found for the defendant was demanded, and it was error to grant the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” Applying the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff ivas contrary to law and the evidence, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error. See also Hines v. Little, 26 Ga. App. 136 (105 S. E. 618); Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Dunn, 21 Ga. App. 379 (94 S. E. 661).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Guerry, J., concur. MacIntyre, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E. 551, 59 Ga. App. 296, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abercrombie-v-ivey-gactapp-1938.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack