Winship Machine Co. v. Burger
This text of 35 S.E. 120 (Winship Machine Co. v. Burger) 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.
Opinion
1. This case upon its facts as found by the jury is controlled by the law now embodied in the Civil Code, §§2611, 2612, imposing upon masters the duty of exercising ordinary care in furnishing machinery “reasonably safe for all persons who operate it with ordinary care and diligence,” and rendering a master liable for injuries to a servant arising from the negligence of the master in failing to comply with that duty, when he “knew or ought to have known of . . the defects or danger in the machinery supplied,” and when “the servant injured did not know and had not equal means of knowing such fact, and by the exercise of ordinary care could not have known thereof.”
2. The evidence warranted the jury in finding for the plaintiff, and it does not appear that the amount of the verdict was excessive.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
35 S.E. 120, 110 Ga. 296, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winship-machine-co-v-burger-ga-1900.