Singleton v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Singleton v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.

61 S.E. 881, 4 Ga. App. 462, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 445

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 18, 1908

Docket1031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 S.E. 881 (Singleton v. Merchants & Miners Transportation 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

Singleton v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 61 S.E. 881, 4 Ga. App. 462, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The action is by a ship-hand against the owners, for injuries received while loading freight. The evidence tends to indicate either that the injury was occasioned by the negligence of fellow servants— as to this defendant a non-actionable transaction, or through haste in the manner in which the loading was being done under the orders of a foreman, — a thing for which the defendant primarily would be liable. Nevertheless the situation was manifestly patent, and the servant, by voluntarily continuing to work under the circumstances, in legal contemplation evinced a willingness to assume risk of injury. The grant of a nonsuit was, therefore, not erroneous. Judgment affirmed.

Shelby Myrick, for plaintiff. O’Connor, O’Byrne & Hartridge, for defendant.

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

Powell, J.

The action is by a ship-hand against the owners, for injuries received while loading freight. The evidence tends to indicate either that the injury was occasioned by the negligence of fellow servants— as to this defendant a non-actionable transaction, or through haste in the manner in which the loading was being done under the orders of a foreman, — a thing for which the defendant primarily would be liable. Nevertheless the situation was manifestly patent, and the servant, by voluntarily continuing to work under the circumstances, in legal contemplation evinced a willingness to assume risk of injury. The grant of a nonsuit was, therefore, not erroneous. Judgment affirmed.

Shelby Myrick, for plaintiff. O’Connor, O’Byrne & Hartridge, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 S.E. 881, 4 Ga. App. 462, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-merchants-miners-transportation-co-gactapp-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack