Williams v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

99 S.E. 48, 23 Ga. App. 552, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 202

• Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
• Decided: April 16, 1919
• Docket: 9923
• Status: Published

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

Even if the allegations of the petition as finally amended, be construed most strongly in favor of the plaintiff (and not against him as _ the law requires), the court did' not err in dismissing it on demurrer; for it affirmatively appears therefrom that, although the defendant, his master, may have been guilty of negligence in furnishing him defective instrumentalities with which to work, his opportunities to discover their defective condition were equal, if not superior, to those of the master, since the defects were patent to superficial observation and were in fact observed by him before he was injured. Butler v. Atlanta Buggy Co., 10 Ga. App. 175 (73 S. E. 25) ; Kilgo v. Rome Soil Pipe Mfg. Co., 16 Ga. App. 737 (4) (86 S. E. 82), and cases cited. Moreover, the allegations show, as a matter of'law, that his injury was the consequence of his own negligence coupled with the operation, of natural law, the effect of which he could estimate as well as the master. Williams v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 18 Ga. App. 117 (89 S. E. 158),

and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur. Atkinson & Born, Charles Akerman, for plaintiff, cited:

Civil Code (1910), § 3783; Pitts v. Florida Central &c. R. Co., 98 Ga. 605; Bowen v. Adams, 139 Ga. 688-91; Hough v. Ry. Co., 100 U. S. 313; Gela Valley R. Co. v. Hall, 333 U. S. 94, 101-2, and cit.; Stirk v. Cen. R. Co., 79 Ga. 495.

R. C. Jordan, for defendant, cited:

W. & A. R. Co. v. Moran, 116 Ga. 441; Ludd v. Wilkinson, 118 Ga. 535; Banks v. Schofield’s Sons Co., 136 Ga. 667; Hobbs v. Bowie, 131 Ga. 431; Wilder v. Miller, 138 Ga. 139; Bolden v. Cen. Ry. Co., 130, Ga. 456; Flury v. Hightower Box Co., 133 Ga. 300; Southern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 137 Ga. 704; Butter v. Atlanta Buggy Co., supra; Kilgo. v. Rome Soil Pipe Mfg. Co., supra; Williams v. A. C. L. R. Co., supra; Waldo v. Cen. Ry. Co., 11 Ga. App. 484; Elliott v. Tifton Hill Co., 12 Ga. App. 498; Shue v. Cen. Ry. Co., 6 Ga. App. 714 (distinguished).