Taylor v. American Clay Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Taylor v. American Clay Co.

59 S.E. 829, 3 Ga. App. 295, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 624

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1907

Docket781

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 S.E. 829 (Taylor v. American Clay 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

Taylor v. American Clay Co., 59 S.E. 829, 3 Ga. App. 295, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 624 (Ga. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The plaintiff’s thirteen-year old son met his death in the hopper of a crusher at the defendant’s kaolin plant. The action is based upon the theory that the relation of master and servant existed. There was no proof of any employment, except the hearsay statement of the son to the father that he had been hired, and the physical fact that he had been rolling a wheelbarrow with clay in it a short while before the fatal, mishap occurred. The proof does not show how the boy happened to get into the hopper. The top of the hopper was flush with the floor on which the clay was rolled. Whether he slipped in, attempted to step over or across the hopper and fell in, or how he otherwise came to get into the hopper, is unknown. He was already in when his screams attracted the attention of others, and he was never able to tell how it occurred. On the day before, the boy had been warned separately by two persons of the danger of getting too near the hopper. The burden of proving negligence was upon the plaintiff. Evans v. Josephine Mills, 124 Ga. 318 (52 S. E. 538). The warning given in this ease differences it from Beck v. Standard Cotton Mills, 1 Ga. App. 278 (57 S. E. 998). Judgment affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

The plaintiff’s thirteen-year old son met his death in the hopper of a crusher at the defendant’s kaolin plant. The action is based upon the theory that the relation of master and servant existed. There was no proof of any employment, except the hearsay statement of the son to the father that he had been hired, and the physical fact that he had been rolling a wheelbarrow with clay in it a short while before the fatal, mishap occurred. The proof does not show how the boy happened to get into the hopper. The top of the hopper was flush with the floor on which the clay was rolled. Whether he slipped in, attempted to step over or across the hopper and fell in, or how he otherwise came to get into the hopper, is unknown. He was already in when his screams attracted the attention of others, and he was never able to tell how it occurred. On the day before, the boy had been warned separately by two persons of the danger of getting too near the hopper. The burden of proving negligence was upon the plaintiff. Evans v. Josephine Mills, 124 Ga. 318 (52 S. E. 538). The warning given in this ease differences it from Beck v. Standard Cotton Mills, 1 Ga. App. 278 (57 S. E. 998). Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.E. 829, 3 Ga. App. 295, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-american-clay-co-gactapp-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack