Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

133 S.E. 286, 35 Ga. App. 416, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 409

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 14, 1926·No. 16801·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

Construing the petition most strongly against the pleader, as we must, it is at least capable of the reasonable construction that the defendant’s section foreman was palpably acting without the scope of his limited authority, in ordering the decedent to do the particular work in the performance of which he was killed. The master could not be held liable for an injury received by one of its servants in obeying such a command, and the court did not err in dismissing the petition on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Harrell & Custer, for plaintiff. B. (?. Hartsfield, Pope & Bennet, for defendant.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

Construing the petition most strongly against the pleader, as we must, it is at least capable of the reasonable construction that the defendant’s section foreman was palpably acting without the scope of his limited authority, in ordering the decedent to do the particular work in the performance of which he was killed. The master could not be held liable for an injury received by one of its servants in obeying such a command, and the court did not err in dismissing the petition on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Harrell & Custer, for plaintiff. B. (?. Hartsfield, Pope & Bennet, for defendant.

Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 133 S.E. 286, 35 Ga. App. 416, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

133 S.E. 286 (Taylor v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related