Simmons v. Southern Railway Co.

91 S.E. 917, 19 Ga. App. 524, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 216
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 20, 1917·No. 7777·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Georoe, J.

“In order for a servant to recover for an injury on the ground that it resulted from liis compliance with a direct order of his master, or of his master’s representative, the servant must show that the order was a negligent one under the circumstances. If the order was negligent, and the servant knew of the peril of complying with it, or if he had equal means with his master of knowing of the peril, or by the exercise of ordinary care might have known thereof, then he can not recover for an injury received in complying with the order.” Hightower v. Southern Ry. Co., 146 Ga. 279 (91 S. E. 52). There was no error in dismissing the petition on general demurrer. See Cowart v. Southern Marble Co., 144 Ga. 254 (87 S. E. 282). The special demurrer is also meritorious.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

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

Simmons v. Southern Railway Co., 91 S.E. 917, 19 Ga. App. 524, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

91 S.E. 917 (Simmons v. Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stringer v. Atlanta Box Factory
103 S.E. 421 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Berryton Mills v. Parham
98 S.E. 241 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)