American Thread Co. v. Rochester, 33030
| Decision Date | 16 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 33030,No. 2,33030,2 |
| Citation | 62 S.E.2d 602,82 Ga.App. 873 |
| Parties | AMERICAN THREAD CO. v. ROCHESTER et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In an action founded on negligence mere general averments of negligence are sufficient as against a general demurrer.
2. But a petition containing only such general allegations of negligence is not sufficient to withstand a special demurrer setting up that it fails to set forth any specific act of negligence.
3. 'A specification of the particulars of the negligence relied on can not be avoided by an allegation that the plaintiff has been unable to ascertain the particular acts of negligence causing the injury, and that on account of the manner in which the injury was inflicted they were more peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant than of the plaintiff.'
4. But here, so far as it relates to the agency of the defendant corporation, where the defendant corporation is in a better position than the plaintiff to determine who acted in its behalf, and the plaintiff alleges that he does not know the name of the agent and has no means of obtaining the information, and where the time, place and circumstances of the occurrence which brought about the alleged injury are stated with great particularity, it should be an easy matter for the defendant corporation to ascertain the names of the agents who were responsible, if responsibility existed, or are blameless if the charge was unfounded, the failure to allege the name of the agent is not a sufficient reason to dismiss the petition on special demurrer.
5. It is not required that a petition be an exhaustive statement of the exact evidence upon which the party will rely in the establishment of his contentions. 'On the contrary, so far as matters of inducement and other minor matters are concerned, a clear, brief statement of immaterial matters (the briefer the better) is to be commended.' Woodruff v. Hughes, 2 Ga.App. 361(5), 58 S.E. 551.
6. The petition set forth a cause of action for damages for assault and battery upon the plaintiff's wife, and was not subject to the defendant corporation's general demurrer.
Burnell Rochester brought an action against the American Thread Company, Elzie Teal and Durwood Teal, the petition alleging the following: The American Thread Company is a corporation of the State of New Jersey, doing business in Georgia, but neither incorporated nor domesticated under the laws of Georgia. (Paragraphs 1-5) The plaintiff is a former employee of the defendant corporation, formerly working at its plant at Tallapoosa, Georgia. (Par. 6) He is also a member of the Textile Workers Union of America C.I.O., which will be referred to in the petition as the union. (Par. 7.) There had previously been labor disputes and difficulties between the union and the defendant corporation at its Tallapoosa plant, and at the times herein complained of there existed a labor dispute between the union and the said corporation at its Dalton, Georgia, plant. (Par. 8.) Many employees of the defendant corporation at its Tallapoosa plant are members of the union. (Par. 9.) The plaintiff, as well as other members of the union at Tallapoosa, was interested in informing the employees of the defendant corporation at Tallapoosa of the true facts of the labor dispute and the strike at Dalton, and among other things was handing out copies of the C.I.O. News Digest, which is a union newspaper, continuing a full account of the strike at Dalton. (Par. 10.) The defendant corporation was interested in suppressing and preventing the dissemination of news about this strike among its Tallapoosa employees and was willing to go to, and did go to, any means, fair or foul, including criminal violence, intimidation, and other means to suppress the distribution of this news and these facts. (Par. 11.) The defendant corporation used, among other means, certain employees at the Tallapoosa plant who were not members of the union. (Par. 12.) Among these employees so used were the said Elzie Teal and Durwood Teal. (Par. 13.) The said Elzie Teal and Durwood Teal on at least two previous occasions interfered with and prevented members of the Textile Workers Union of America from passing out to those who were willing to receive the pamphlets, similar to those above referred to, on the public street adjacent to the plant of the defendant corporation in Tallapoosa, Georgia. (Par. 14.) On one such occasion the said Elzie Teal and Durwood Teal and others came from the plant of the defendant corporation armed with clubs under threat of which the said union members peaceably departed. On the other such occasion the said Elzie Teal and Durwood Teal and others came from the plant armed with firearms of various and sundry description under threat of which the said union members peaceably departed. (Par. 15.) The said Durwood Teal and Elzie Teal and others in their actions above referred to were a part of an organized plan employed and used by the defendant corporation for the purpose of intimidation, force and violence and discouraging union activities in general, and at this particular time, the dissemination of the information and facts above set out. (Par. 16.)
On or about 3 o'clock p. m., August 19, 1949, the plaintiff was standing on the public street in front of the American Thread Company plant in Tallapoosa where he was and had been approximately 30 minutes distributing copies of the said union newspaper to such employees who would accept them. The plaintiff's activities were completely peaceable and orderly, and he was engaged in doing nothing more than offering to such employees a copy of the said newspaper containing a full account of the strike at the Dalton plant. (Par. 17.) The plaintiff was standing alone and completely unarmed with any weapon of any sort at the said time and place. Over his arm was a stack of the papers he was distributing. (Par. 18.) A few minutes after 3 o'clock Durwood Teal came out of the gate of the plant of the defendant corporation and walked up to the plaintiff, saying 'What have you got there?' The plaintiff extended the stack of newspapers for the said Durwood Teal to see, when suddenly and without warning and without further words the said Durwood Teal struck the plaintiff a brutal and stunning blow in the face, which blow knocked the plaintiff to the ground in a stunned condition. (Par. 19.) While the plaintiff was thus prostrate on the ground the said Durwood Teal began beating the plaintiff around the head and face in a savage and violent manner. The blows were severe and stunning in nature, and, in addition, were struck so as to bruise, cut and deface the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that he would in this manner have then and there been beaten into a complete state of unconsciousness, with his head and face damaged and disfigured as much as possible, except for the intervention of the plaintiff's wife hereinafter described. (Par. 20.) At that time and place the occurrence attracted a number of people who by their humane instincts would have interfered with and restrained this cowardly and brutal assault except for the fact that they were restrained by Elzie Teal as herein related. (Par. 21.) At the time the said Durwood Teal accosted the plaintiff he [was] followed immediately by his father, Elzie Teal, who had a double-barrel shotgun. (Par. 22.) While the said savage beating was taking place the said Elzie Teal stood by with the shotgun, which he pointed at the crowd gathered and directly at anyone who moved to interfere. (Par. 23.) Elzie Teal, by brandishing this shotgun at the crowd in general and at anyone who made [as] though he would interfere, successfully prevented anyone of the persons standing by from coming to the assistance of the plaintiff. (Par. 24.) The lone exception to this was the plaintiff's wife, who had come up later and observed her husband thus savagely beaten and who also had observed the activities of the said Elzie Teal in presiding over the beating with the shotgun as above stated. (Par. 25.) The plaintiff's wife alone of all of the crowd which had then gathered risked her life and, in definance of the shotgun, came to the plaintiff's assistance or attempted to do so. (Par. 26.) The said Durwood Teal thereupon struck the plaintiff's wife in the face with his fist, knocking her to the street. He thereupon returned his attention to the plaintiff and continued the beating. (Par. 27.)
The plaintiff's wife, recovering from her temporarily stunned condition, got up and again tried to pull the said Durwood Teal off of the plaintiff. At this point the plaintiff was severely bruised and stunned and unable to help himself in any way. Diverting his attention from the plaintiff for a moment, the said Durwood Teal grasped the plaintiff's wife, placed her head in the crook of his left arm, and in a vicious and brutal manner began beating her in the face and head with his right fist, meanwhile holding her head with his left arm. When he had beaten her about the face and sufficiently to bruise, shock and stun her, he dropped her to the ground and again renewed his savage beating of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was meanwhile completely helpless and stunned, and Elzie Teal and his shotgun were continuing to preside over the affair, keeping anyone else off, apparently confident that his son could take care of both the plaintiff and the plaintiff's wife, which the son was very successfully doing. (Par. 28.) While the said Durwood Teal was continuing to beat the plaintiff into a state of unconsciousness, the plaintiff's wife arose and, for the third time, attempted to come to his help, although she was by this time bruised, lacerated and in a shocked condition. The said Durwood Teal did thereupon strike the plaintiff's wife in the face with all of the force he could muster, knocking her violently against a post and into a state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hospital Authority of City of St. Marys v. Eason
...did not err in overruling these special demurrers. Davis v. Homer Lumber Co., 211 Ga. 144(2), 84 S.E.2d 59; American Thread Co. v. Rochester, 82 Ga.App. 873(4), 62 S.E.2d 602. Special demurrer 8 attacks paragraph 19 of the petition for uncertainty and indefiniteness objecting in substance t......
-
Georgia, A., S. & C. Ry. Co. v. Rutherford
...of the cause of action. Yorkshire Ins. Co. of New York v. Cravey, 102 Ga.App. 591, 117 S.E.2d 167. See also American Thread Co. v. Rochester, 82 Ga.App. 873, 62 S.E.2d 602; Whitaker v. Creedon, 97 Ga.App. 320, 103 S.E.2d 175; Hobbs v. Holliman, 74 Ga.App. 735, 41 S.E.2d 332; Rhodes v. Indus......
-
Rudo v. Stubbs
...co-conspirators act as agents of each other when they commit acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. See American Thread Co. v. Rochester, 82 Ga.App. 873, 884-885, 62 S.E.2d 602 (1950). Accordingly, we agree with the many courts which have held that the in-state acts of a resident co-conspir......
-
Chenault v Bursey
...co-conspirators act as agents of each other when they commit acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. See American Thread Co. v. Rochester, 82 Ga.App. 873, 884-885, 62 S.E.2d 602 (1950). Accordingly, we agree with the many courts which have held that the in-state acts of a resident co-conspir......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby, Jason Crawford, and Teresa T. Abell
...472 S.E.2d at 516. 85. See O.C.GA. Sec. 9-10-91. 86. 221 Ga. App. at 703, 472 S.E.2d at 516 (citing American Thread Co. v. Rochester, 82 Ga. App. 873, 62 S.E.2d 602 (1950)). 87. Id. 88. Id. at 704, 472 S.E.2d at 517 (citing National Egg Co. v. Bank Leumi le-Israel, B.M., 514 F. Supp. 1125 (......