Allen v. Hixson

• Citation: 36 S.E. 810,111 Ga. 460
• Parties: ALLEN. v. HIXSON.
• Decision Date: 14 July 1900
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

111 Ga. 460

36 S.E. 810

ALLEN.

v.HIXSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 14, 1900.

INJURY TO EMPLOYS—VOLUNTARY SERVICES —CAUSE OF ACTION.

1. An employé who, as a mere volunteer, does an act entirely outside of the scope of his employment, and in consequence receives personal injuries, cannot hold his master liable therefor.

2. No cause of action arises from a failure to perform an act of humanity, if such failure involves no breach of a duty imposed by law.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Richmond county; W. F. Eve, Judge.

Action by Agnes Allen against William P. Hixson. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report.

The plaintiff was a young woman employéd In the defendant's laundry as an operative of a mangle, which consisted of an upright frame, holding two horizontal metallic rollers, covered with divers layers of cloth, and an uncovered hollow metallic bar between said rollers, and a lever or appliance on one side of said frame for the purpose of bringing the rollers in close proximity to the bar, and on the other side of the frame was an arrangement of band-wheel and cogwheel for receiving and conveying steam power to the rollers. The method of operating the mangle was to put the rollers in motion by the appliance of steam power through said arrangement of bandwheel and cogwheel, and then bring the rollers in close proximity to the bar by the use of the lever. When steam power was so applied, the rollers would revolve parallel to each other and to the bar, but with an interstice between them sufficient to allow the introduction of a hand; but when the lever was used for the usual operation of the mangle the rollers would be brought into such close proximity to the bar as only to admit of the passage between them of a collar, cuff, or other article to be laundered. After the application of steam power it was the duty of plaintiff to bring the rollers into close proximity to the bar by the use of the lever, and then to insert the articles to be ironed. One morning, on coming to work, she found that the power had been applied, and that the rollers were revolving, but she observed that they were not revolving in their usual and proper manner, namely, upon axes parallel to each other, but converged obliquely, so that at their right-hand ends, facing the machine, they were closer together than at the other ends. She further observed that the cloth layers on the rollers were not firmly wrapped around them in their usual manner, so as to remain firmly in position, but they appeared to be loose and loosening, so as to be unwinding from the rollers, the unwound portion lying in front of the rollers, and extending out upon the shelf in front of them. The lever had not been so applied as to bring the rollers into close proximity, nor did she apply it. Seeing that the machine was not in its usual condition, she did not attempt to use it, but reported that fact to Pickett, the representative, general superintendent, and master mechanic of defendant in said business; it being her duty to make such report to him and to obey his orders. He came to inspect the mangle. The unwrapped cloth concealed from view the condition of the rollers, and, in order to show Pickett such condition, she, using her right hand, took hold of the unwrapped end...