Bowden v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
This text of 111 S.E. 210 (Bowden v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.) 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.
Opinion
1. The negligent act alleged and proved which injured the plaintiff was that of a fellow servant engaged in the same business, for which the common master is not responsible, except in cases of railroad companies. Civil Code (1910), § 3129.
2. The plaintiff and other employees, who were .throwing lead out of the upper windows, and the foreman, wno instructed them to do so, were all in the same service. Under the rulings of the Supreme Court in Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609 (56 S. E. 839, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772), and Brush Electric Light Co. v. Wells, 110 Ga. 192 (35 S. E. 365), the foreman was only a fellow servant. Besides, the order of the foreman to the employees was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, but the negligent manner in 11411011 the order was executed by these employees.
3. The court did not err granting a nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
111 S.E. 210, 28 Ga. App. 402, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowden-v-virginia-carolina-chemical-co-gactapp-1922.