Savannah Warehouse & Compress Co. v. Hayes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Savannah Warehouse & Compress Co. v. Hayes

103 S.E. 270, 25 Ga. App. 356, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 802

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1920

Docket11385

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 270 (Savannah Warehouse & Compress Co. v. Hayes) 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

Savannah Warehouse & Compress Co. v. Hayes, 103 S.E. 270, 25 Ga. App. 356, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

1. “ A servant is bound to obey a 'command, when given as such by the master, if it pertains to the duties of the servant’s employment and docs not involve a violation of the law, and if the act required is not one which is of itself so obviously dangerous that no person of ordinary prudence could be expected to perform it.” Hodges v. Murkison, 24 Ga. App. 739 (102 S. E. 134), and cases cited. See also Usry v. Augusta Southern R. Co., 24 Ga. App. 722 (102 S. E. 184).

2. Testing the petition in this case by the foregoing ruling, a cause of action was set out, as the facts alleged raised for determination by the jury the questions as to whether the order as given to the plaintiff by the alter ego of the defendant was a negligent one, and whether the act required under the assurance given -was one which of itself was so obviously dangerous that no person of ordinary prudence could be expected to perform it. The court, therefore, propei’ly overruled the general demurrer; and such of the special grounds of the demurrer as were meritorious were met by appropriate amendments.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. O’Byrne, Hartridge & Wright, for plaintiff in error. Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, contra.

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

Smith, J.

1. “ A servant is bound to obey a 'command, when given as such by the master, if it pertains to the duties of the servant’s employment and docs not involve a violation of the law, and if the act required is not one which is of itself so obviously dangerous that no person of ordinary prudence could be expected to perform it.” Hodges v. Murkison, 24 Ga. App. 739 (102 S. E. 134), and cases cited. See also Usry v. Augusta Southern R. Co., 24 Ga. App. 722 (102 S. E. 184).

2. Testing the petition in this case by the foregoing ruling, a cause of action was set out, as the facts alleged raised for determination by the jury the questions as to whether the order as given to the plaintiff by the alter ego of the defendant was a negligent one, and whether the act required under the assurance given -was one which of itself was so obviously dangerous that no person of ordinary prudence could be expected to perform it. The court, therefore, propei’ly overruled the general demurrer; and such of the special grounds of the demurrer as were meritorious were met by appropriate amendments.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. O’Byrne, Hartridge & Wright, for plaintiff in error. Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 270, 25 Ga. App. 356, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savannah-warehouse-compress-co-v-hayes-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack