Atkinson v. Swords

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atkinson v. Swords

72 S.E. 42, 9 Ga. App. 669, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 291

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1911

Docket3118

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 42 (Atkinson v. Swords) 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

Atkinson v. Swords, 72 S.E. 42, 9 Ga. App. 669, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 291 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

As far as the allegations relate to negligence of the master in furnishing an engine with a pilot, instead of an engine with a footboard, this was an assumed risk; but this allegation is pertinent, and proof of the fact would be relevant as illustrative of another alleged ground, of negligence, — that the engineer, with knowledge of the increased danger in the use of the engine, failed to keep a proper lookout, and because of this omission failed to promptly stop the engine when he saw, or by the exercise of due diligence should have seen, the plaintiff when he slipped off the pilot in attempting to make a coupling therefrom. The engineer, knowing that the switchman was in an unusually dangerous position, though as to that position the risk was assumed, should have taken precaution accordingly. On the acts of negligence charged against the engineer, the petition was sufficient to withstand a general demurrer, the employment being one as to which the defense of fellow service has been abolished by statute.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

As far as the allegations relate to negligence of the master in furnishing an engine with a pilot, instead of an engine with a footboard, this was an assumed risk; but this allegation is pertinent, and proof of the fact would be relevant as illustrative of another alleged ground, of negligence, — that the engineer, with knowledge of the increased danger in the use of the engine, failed to keep a proper lookout, and because of this omission failed to promptly stop the engine when he saw, or by the exercise of due diligence should have seen, the plaintiff when he slipped off the pilot in attempting to make a coupling therefrom. The engineer, knowing that the switchman was in an unusually dangerous position, though as to that position the risk was assumed, should have taken precaution accordingly. On the acts of negligence charged against the engineer, the petition was sufficient to withstand a general demurrer, the employment being one as to which the defense of fellow service has been abolished by statute.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 42, 9 Ga. App. 669, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atkinson-v-swords-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack