Nichols v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Nichols v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Corp.

106 S.E. 593, 26 Ga. App. 576, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 530

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 26, 1921

Docket12176

StatusPublished

This text of 106 S.E. 593 (Nichols v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Corp.) 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

Nichols v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Corp., 106 S.E. 593, 26 Ga. App. 576, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 530 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Where suit is brought by a servant against his master for injuries resulting from defective machinery, it must appear, before there can be a recovery, that the servant injured did not know and had not equal means of knowing of the defective condition of the machinery • alleged to have caused his injury, and by the exercise of ordinary care could not have known thereof. Civil Code (1910), § 3131.

2. It affirmatively appearing, from the allegations in the petition, that the alleged defect in the rip-saw, and the insufficient assistance constituting the ground of negligence for which the damages were claimed, were not only known but fully realized by the plaintiff, and that, notwithstanding this knowledge and realization, he undertook the risk of operation, it must follow that he assumed the risk of any danger consequent to such operation, and was therefore not entitled to recover damages. Flury v. Hightower &c. Co., 132 Ga. 300 (64 S. E. 72); Butler v. Atlanta Buggy Co., 10 Ga. App. 175 (73 S. E. 25).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Stephens, J., conmir. Anderson & Slate, J. L. Anderson, for plaintiff. McDaniel & Black, for defendant.

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

Hill, J.

1. Where suit is brought by a servant against his master for injuries resulting from defective machinery, it must appear, before there can be a recovery, that the servant injured did not know and had not equal means of knowing of the defective condition of the machinery • alleged to have caused his injury, and by the exercise of ordinary care could not have known thereof. Civil Code (1910), § 3131.

2. It affirmatively appearing, from the allegations in the petition, that the alleged defect in the rip-saw, and the insufficient assistance constituting the ground of negligence for which the damages were claimed, were not only known but fully realized by the plaintiff, and that, notwithstanding this knowledge and realization, he undertook the risk of operation, it must follow that he assumed the risk of any danger consequent to such operation, and was therefore not entitled to recover damages. Flury v. Hightower &c. Co., 132 Ga. 300 (64 S. E. 72); Butler v. Atlanta Buggy Co., 10 Ga. App. 175 (73 S. E. 25).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Stephens, J., conmir. Anderson & Slate, J. L. Anderson, for plaintiff. McDaniel & Black, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E. 593, 26 Ga. App. 576, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-atlantic-ice-coal-corp-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack