Biederman v. Montezuma Manufacturing Co.

116 S.E. 225, 29 Ga. App. 589, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 132
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 15, 1923·No. 13308·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Bell, J.

There being no allegation to the contrary, it must be assumed that the servant (the plaintiff) was of ordinary intelligence, and that he was laboring under no physical defect or disability which rendered him incapable of appreciating the situation and knowing of the dangers incident to his employment. Thomas v. Georgia Granite Co., 140 Ga. 459, 461 (79 S. E. 130). Construing the petition (as it must be construed) most strongly against the plaintiff, it appears that the defects upon the floor which' caused him to slip and fall, and thus resulted in the injuries for which he sues, were patent and obvious, and that he had equal means with the defendant, his master, of knowing thereof. No cause of action is alleged, and the general demurrer of the defendant was therefore properly sustained. Civil Code (1910), § 3131; Dozier v. Atlanta, 118 Ga. 354 (45 S. E. 306); Ludd v. Wilkins, 118 Ga. 525 (45 S. E. 429); Day v. Graybill, 24 Ga. App. 524 (101 S. E. 759); Ogain v. Imperial Cafe, 25 Ga. App. 415 (103 S. E. 594).

■Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins P. J., and Stephens, J., eonewr. J. J. Bull & Son, for plaintiff. Jule Fellon, for defendant.

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

Biederman v. Montezuma Manufacturing Co., 116 S.E. 225, 29 Ga. App. 589, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 132 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

116 S.E. 225 (Biederman v. Montezuma Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Misenhamer v. Pharr
107 S.E.2d 875 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Starr v. Emory University
93 S.E.2d 399 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Ray v. Western Atlantic Railroad
9 S.E.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Hopkins v. Barron
6 S.E.2d 96 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Reid v. Southern Railway Co.
183 S.E. 849 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Fulford
127 S.E. 812 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Callahan v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Corp.
126 S.E. 278 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Linenkohl v. Curington
124 S.E. 365 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Smith v. Inman
122 S.E. 632 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Avary v. Anderson
120 S.E. 683 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Mattox v. Lambright
120 S.E. 685 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)