McDaniel v. Acme Brewing Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

McDaniel v. Acme Brewing Co.

38 S.E. 404, 113 Ga. 80, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 156

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 26, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 38 S.E. 404 (McDaniel v. Acme Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDaniel v. Acme Brewing Co., 38 S.E. 404, 113 Ga. 80, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 156 (Ga. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

“ The servant seeking to recover for an injury takes the burden upon himself of establishing negligence on the part of the master, and due care on his own part.” Georgia Railroad Co. [82]*82v. Nelms, 83 Ga. 75; Brush Electric Co. v. Wells, 103 Ga. 515. Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, the .court properly awarded a nonsuit, for the reason that there was no direct evidence from which the jury could find that the plaintiff’s husband, who was a servant of the defendant, was in the exercise of due care at the time of his death; nor was there any proof of circumstances from which an inference to this effect could be legitimately drawn. The deceased was killed, in a room where he was alone, by the working of machinery; and there was, according to the evidence, nothing in the manner in which the machinery was, or could have been, operated which would throw any light upon the question as to whether he was in the exercise of due care. This being true, a nonsuit was properly awarded, notwithstanding the fact that during the progress of the trial the jury had been allowed, in the company of the judge and counsel in the case, to go to the scene of the homicide, and the judge had directed that the machinery should be put in operation in the presence of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Jiostices conctorring.

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

Cobb, J.

“ The servant seeking to recover for an injury takes the burden upon himself of establishing negligence on the part of the master, and due care on his own part.” Georgia Railroad Co. [82]*82v. Nelms, 83 Ga. 75; Brush Electric Co. v. Wells, 103 Ga. 515. Applying this principle to the facts of the present case, the .court properly awarded a nonsuit, for the reason that there was no direct evidence from which the jury could find that the plaintiff’s husband, who was a servant of the defendant, was in the exercise of due care at the time of his death; nor was there any proof of circumstances from which an inference to this effect could be legitimately drawn. The deceased was killed, in a room where he was alone, by the working of machinery; and there was, according to the evidence, nothing in the manner in which the machinery was, or could have been, operated which would throw any light upon the question as to whether he was in the exercise of due care. This being true, a nonsuit was properly awarded, notwithstanding the fact that during the progress of the trial the jury had been allowed, in the company of the judge and counsel in the case, to go to the scene of the homicide, and the judge had directed that the machinery should be put in operation in the presence of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Jiostices conctorring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E. 404, 113 Ga. 80, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-acme-brewing-co-ga-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack