Self v. Adel Lumber Co.

64 S.E. 112, 5 Ga. App. 846, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 149
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 23, 1909
Docket1307
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 64 S.E. 112 (Self v. Adel Lumber Co.) 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
Self v. Adel Lumber Co., 64 S.E. 112, 5 Ga. App. 846, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 149 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. A corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber operated an engine and flat cars in connection with its business, for the pui'pose of hauling timber and transporting its employees to and from their places of work. Held: (a) The lumber company was not a carrier of passengers; and its employees, while being transported, were not passengers, (b) The relation of master and servant existed between the company and its employees while the latter were being transported to and from their places of work; and the company was charged with the duty of exercising ordinary care in furnishing eqrs and appliances in a reasonably safe condition, Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609 (56 S. E. 839, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 772).

2. Where the safety of the servant is put in jeopardy by the negligence of the master, and, in attempting to escape the apparently imminent danger, the servant is injured, it is no defense to the master that the servant misjudged the danger; provided the facts were sufficient upon which to base a reasonable fear that the danger was impending. Macon & Western R. Co. v. Winn, 26 Ga. 255; Smith v. Wrightsville R. Co., 83 Ga. 674 (10 S. E. 361) ; Simmons v. East Tennessee Ry. Co., 92 Ga. 660 (18 S. E. 999), and cit.

3. The' allegations of negligence were proved as laid in the petition, and presented questions for the determination of the jury, and it was error to grant a nonsuit. Adams v. Haigler, 2 Ga. App. 103 (58 S. E. 330) ; Corcoran v. Merchants & Miners Trans. Co., 1 Ga. App. 743 (57 S. E. 962); Southern Bauxite Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Fuller, 116 Ga. 695 (43 S. E. 64). Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Holliday v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.
132 S.E. 210 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Great Southern Lumber Co. v. Hamilton
101 So. 787 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1924)
Holliday v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.
124 S.E. 89 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Karabalis v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.
105 S.E. 755 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1921)
Frisco Lumber Co. v. Spivey
1914 OK 184 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Putnam v. Pacific Monthly Co.
130 P. 986 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1913)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. McGuire
73 S.E. 702 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Stevens v. Bunn
64 S.E. 1002 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 S.E. 112, 5 Ga. App. 846, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/self-v-adel-lumber-co-gactapp-1909.