Wallace v. Kimball Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wallace v. Kimball Co.

93 S.E. 260, 20 Ga. App. 617, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1001

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 25, 1917

Docket8658

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 260 (Wallace v. Kimball 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

Wallace v. Kimball Co., 93 S.E. 260, 20 Ga. App. 617, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1001 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

If it be conceded that, under the allegations of the petition, the defendant’s foreman in charge of its packing and shipping department was its vice-principal, it nevertheless appears, from further allegations of the petition, that, as to the negligence on his part which brought about the injury, he was a mere fellow servant of the plaintiff. The petition, therefore, was properly dismissed on general demurrer. While doing a servant’s work engaged solely in executing the ordinary details of labor in connection with another servant, a foreman who' in other respects stands in the place of the master is a fellow servant, and his negligence therein will not render the master liable to the other servant, except where the master is a railroad company. Civil Code (1910), § 3129; Studevant v. Blue Springs Lumber Co., 16 Ga. App. 668 (3) (85 S. E. 977), and eases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

George, J.

If it be conceded that, under the allegations of the petition, the defendant’s foreman in charge of its packing and shipping department was its vice-principal, it nevertheless appears, from further allegations of the petition, that, as to the negligence on his part which brought about the injury, he was a mere fellow servant of the plaintiff. The petition, therefore, was properly dismissed on general demurrer. While doing a servant’s work engaged solely in executing the ordinary details of labor in connection with another servant, a foreman who' in other respects stands in the place of the master is a fellow servant, and his negligence therein will not render the master liable to the other servant, except where the master is a railroad company. Civil Code (1910), § 3129; Studevant v. Blue Springs Lumber Co., 16 Ga. App. 668 (3) (85 S. E. 977), and eases there cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 260, 20 Ga. App. 617, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-kimball-co-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack