Walton v. Lawrenceville Oil Mill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walton v. Lawrenceville Oil Mill

93 S.E. 495, 20 Ga. App. 819, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1104

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 13, 1917

Docket8828

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 495 (Walton v. Lawrenceville Oil Mill) 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

Walton v. Lawrenceville Oil Mill, 93 S.E. 495, 20 Ga. App. 819, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1104 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. A servant can not recover from his master damages for an injury caused by a defect in machinery supplied him, or its antiquity of structure, where it appears that the servant had means of knowledge equal to or better than those of the master as to such defects or antiquity, and, despite such knowledge, continued to work with the defective or antiquated machinery.

(a) In this case, according to his own testimony, the servant was superintendent of an oil mill, and upon him rested the duty, in behalf of the defendant company, of inspecting and repairing its machinery, and he thus enjoyed better means than the master of discovering that the . valve which caused the injury to him was antiquated or defective, especially since it was a part of his daily duty to use this particular valve, and the master’s knowledge of its condition directly depended upon .the thoroughness with which he discharged his duty to inspect [820]*820and repair, and the promptness and accuracy of his reports relating to the machinery.

Decided September 13, 1917.

Action for damages; from Gwinnett superior court—Judge Hardeman. March 17, 1917.

.0. A. Nix, Evans & Evans, for plaintiff. Smith, Hammond & Smith, for defendant.

(6) The knowledge of the servant that an inspection of the boiler had been recently made by another person, acting without any authority from the defendant but solely in behalf of a company that had insured the boiler against explosion, did not justify him, in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, in relying upon such an inspection, or relieve him of the legal consequences of his negligence in failing to discover the defects in the valve (connected with the boiler) which caused the injury.

2. The evidence did not authorize the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial judge did not err in granting a new trial upon that ground.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Lulce, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. A servant can not recover from his master damages for an injury caused by a defect in machinery supplied him, or its antiquity of structure, where it appears that the servant had means of knowledge equal to or better than those of the master as to such defects or antiquity, and, despite such knowledge, continued to work with the defective or antiquated machinery.

(a) In this case, according to his own testimony, the servant was superintendent of an oil mill, and upon him rested the duty, in behalf of the defendant company, of inspecting and repairing its machinery, and he thus enjoyed better means than the master of discovering that the . valve which caused the injury to him was antiquated or defective, especially since it was a part of his daily duty to use this particular valve, and the master’s knowledge of its condition directly depended upon .the thoroughness with which he discharged his duty to inspect [820]*820and repair, and the promptness and accuracy of his reports relating to the machinery.

Decided September 13, 1917.

Action for damages; from Gwinnett superior court—Judge Hardeman. March 17, 1917.

.0. A. Nix, Evans & Evans, for plaintiff. Smith, Hammond & Smith, for defendant.

(6) The knowledge of the servant that an inspection of the boiler had been recently made by another person, acting without any authority from the defendant but solely in behalf of a company that had insured the boiler against explosion, did not justify him, in the exercise of ordinary care for his own safety, in relying upon such an inspection, or relieve him of the legal consequences of his negligence in failing to discover the defects in the valve (connected with the boiler) which caused the injury.

2. The evidence did not authorize the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the trial judge did not err in granting a new trial upon that ground.

Judgment affirmed.

George and Lulce, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 495, 20 Ga. App. 819, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-lawrenceville-oil-mill-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack