Brown v. Georgia Kaolin Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. Georgia Kaolin Co.

4 S.E.2d 100, 60 Ga. App. 347, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 582

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1939

Docket27392

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 S.E.2d 100 (Brown v. Georgia Kaolin 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.

Bluebook

Brown v. Georgia Kaolin Co., 4 S.E.2d 100, 60 Ga. App. 347, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, P. J.

1. It does not appear from the evidence that the defendant had any right to direct the manner, method, or means for the performance of the work which consisted in the operation and driving of the truck. The driver of the truck was not the defendant’s servant, but was the servant of an independent contractor, and the defendant was not liable for the negligence of the driver of the truck in its operation along a public highway, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. Albert v. Hudson, 49 Ga. App. 636 (176 S. E. 659).

2. It not appearing that the defendant knew that the truck had defective brakes, and it not appearing that the load which defendant put on the truck was not a usual or customary load for a truck of the truck’s capacity, the defendant was not liable for any negligence in the operation of the truck due to the insufficient brakes or to the truck being overloaded, causing the alleged injury to the plaintiff.

3. The court did not err in excluding the testimony offered, or in granting a nonsuit as to both counts of the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur. Thomas W. Hardwick, Harris & McMaster, for plaintiff. Martin, Martin •& Snow, for defendant..

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

Stephens, P. J.

1. It does not appear from the evidence that the defendant had any right to direct the manner, method, or means for the performance of the work which consisted in the operation and driving of the truck. The driver of the truck was not the defendant’s servant, but was the servant of an independent contractor, and the defendant was not liable for the negligence of the driver of the truck in its operation along a public highway, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. Albert v. Hudson, 49 Ga. App. 636 (176 S. E. 659).

2. It not appearing that the defendant knew that the truck had defective brakes, and it not appearing that the load which defendant put on the truck was not a usual or customary load for a truck of the truck’s capacity, the defendant was not liable for any negligence in the operation of the truck due to the insufficient brakes or to the truck being overloaded, causing the alleged injury to the plaintiff.

3. The court did not err in excluding the testimony offered, or in granting a nonsuit as to both counts of the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur. Thomas W. Hardwick, Harris & McMaster, for plaintiff. Martin, Martin •& Snow, for defendant..

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.E.2d 100, 60 Ga. App. 347, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-georgia-kaolin-co-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack