Van Dyke v. Menlo Fruit Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Van Dyke v. Menlo Fruit Co.

59 S.E. 215, 129 Ga. 532, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 504

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 59 S.E. 215 (Van Dyke v. Menlo Fruit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Dyke v. Menlo Fruit Co., 59 S.E. 215, 129 Ga. 532, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 504 (Ga. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where a servant sought to recover damages from his employer an account of a physical injury resulting to him while engaged' in loading logs on a wagon, and it was alleged that the master was negligent in having the loading done where the grass and weeds were dense and likely to trip the feet of the plaintiff and cause him to fall under the log which was being loaded, and that rough round “skids” were used in loading, but it appeared that this condition was fully known to the plaintiff, and that he had equal opportunity with the master for knowing it, but voluntarily assumed the risk, the petition was demurrable.

2. Although in such a suit another employee of the same master was-called a manager, yet where the only duty which he was shown to-have to perform was to help the plaintiff to load logs on a wagon, and it was alleged that he was so engaged at the time of the injury, his action in this regard was that of a fellow-servant. Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 610 (4).

S. An allegation that the master was “bound to place a competent person to assist plaintiif with said log,” without showing any failure in such alleged duty, or injury resulting from such a failure, sets forth no cause of action.

Judgment a/firmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bolden, J., who did not preside.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where a servant sought to recover damages from his employer an account of a physical injury resulting to him while engaged' in loading logs on a wagon, and it was alleged that the master was negligent in having the loading done where the grass and weeds were dense and likely to trip the feet of the plaintiff and cause him to fall under the log which was being loaded, and that rough round “skids” were used in loading, but it appeared that this condition was fully known to the plaintiff, and that he had equal opportunity with the master for knowing it, but voluntarily assumed the risk, the petition was demurrable.

2. Although in such a suit another employee of the same master was-called a manager, yet where the only duty which he was shown to-have to perform was to help the plaintiff to load logs on a wagon, and it was alleged that he was so engaged at the time of the injury, his action in this regard was that of a fellow-servant. Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 610 (4).

S. An allegation that the master was “bound to place a competent person to assist plaintiif with said log,” without showing any failure in such alleged duty, or injury resulting from such a failure, sets forth no cause of action.

Judgment a/firmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bolden, J., who did not preside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.E. 215, 129 Ga. 532, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-dyke-v-menlo-fruit-co-ga-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack