Grindle v. Hitchcock

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grindle v. Hitchcock

118 S.E. 498, 30 Ga. App. 598, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 546

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 10, 1923

Docket14577

StatusPublished

This text of 118 S.E. 498 (Grindle v. Hitchcock) 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

Grindle v. Hitchcock, 118 S.E. 498, 30 Ga. App. 598, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

The demurrers to the petition were properly sustained by the judge of the city court of Cartersville, and it was therefore not erroneous for the judge of the superior court to overrule and deny the certiorari. From the allegations of the petition the only conclusion that it is possible to reach is that the plaintiff’s injury was not caused by any negligence upon the part of the defendant. It is clear from the petition that the injury was due to the' plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care in working around an obviously dangerous agency, the risk of which was assumed by reason of his employment. The plaintiff’s allegations show no legal negligence on the part of the defendant, or breach of any legal duty upon the part of the defendant to the plaintiff, his servant. See International Cotton Mills v. Carroll, 22 Ga. App. 26 (95 S. E. 472); Howard v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 138 Ga. 537 (75 S. E. 624); Walton v. Lawrenceville Oil Mill, 20 Ga. App. 819; Johnson v. Fulton Cotton Mills, 7 Ga. App. 560 (67 S. E. 689); Crown Cotton Mills v. McNally, 123 Ga. 35 (51 S. E. 13); Roland v. Tift, 131 Ga. 683 (63 S. E. 133, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 354).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

The demurrers to the petition were properly sustained by the judge of the city court of Cartersville, and it was therefore not erroneous for the judge of the superior court to overrule and deny the certiorari. From the allegations of the petition the only conclusion that it is possible to reach is that the plaintiff’s injury was not caused by any negligence upon the part of the defendant. It is clear from the petition that the injury was due to the' plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care in working around an obviously dangerous agency, the risk of which was assumed by reason of his employment. The plaintiff’s allegations show no legal negligence on the part of the defendant, or breach of any legal duty upon the part of the defendant to the plaintiff, his servant. See International Cotton Mills v. Carroll, 22 Ga. App. 26 (95 S. E. 472); Howard v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 138 Ga. 537 (75 S. E. 624); Walton v. Lawrenceville Oil Mill, 20 Ga. App. 819; Johnson v. Fulton Cotton Mills, 7 Ga. App. 560 (67 S. E. 689); Crown Cotton Mills v. McNally, 123 Ga. 35 (51 S. E. 13); Roland v. Tift, 131 Ga. 683 (63 S. E. 133, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 354).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 S.E. 498, 30 Ga. App. 598, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grindle-v-hitchcock-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack