Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hood

102 S.E. 133, 24 Ga. App. 769, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 515
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 24, 1920·No. 9481·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under the Federal “employer’s liability act” (U. S. Comp. St. §§ S657-8665), an employee of a railroad company, except in cases involving violation by the carrier of the statute enacted for the safety of employees, assumes the ordinary risks and hazards of his particular employment, and also those defects and risks which are known to him, or which are plainly observable, although due to the master’s negligence. Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Sylvester, 17 Ga. App. 85 (86 S. E. 275), and cit.

2. Under the above ruling- and the facts' of the instant case a recovery by the plaintiff was unauthorized, and the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

3. In view of the above holding it is unnecessary to pass upon the special assignments of error.

Judgment reversed.

Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. See 149 Ga. 829 (102 S. E. 521). Tye, Peeples & Tye, D. W. Blair, W. E. Roberts, John Boston, for plaintiffs in error. George P. Gober, J. E. Mozley, PI. B. Moss, W. I. Heyward, contra.

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

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hood, 102 S.E. 133, 24 Ga. App. 769, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 515 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

102 S.E. 133 (Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Durden
110 S.E. 28 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)