Attleton v. Bibb Mfg. Co

• Decision Date: 16 March 1909
• Docket Number: (No. 1,304.)
• Parties: ATTLETON . v. BIBB MFG. CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

63 S.E. 918

5 Ga.App. 777

ATTLETON .

v.BIBB MFG. CO.

(No. 1, 304.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 16, 1909.

Master and Servant (§ 261^*)—Injuries to

Servant—Petition.

The allegations of the petition, considered most favorably for the plaintiff, did not set forth a cause of action, and there was no error in sustaining a general demurrer thereto and dismissing the petition.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 261.*]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Macon; Robt. Hodges, Judge.

Action by R. E. Attleton against the Bibb Manufacturing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Feagin & Urquhart, for plaintiff in error.

Hardeman, Jones & Johnston, for defendant in error.

HILL, C. J. Attleton brought suit in the city court of Macon against the Bibb Manufacturing Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Demurrers, both general and special, to the plaintiff's petition were sustained. To this ruling the plaintiff ex cepts. It is only necessary to pass upon the judgment sustaining the general demurrer.

The allegations of the petition, briefly stated, are as follows: Plaintiff was an employe of the defendant company. He was 62 years of age and in sound health, and had been in the employ of said company for about 5 months. He was employed by the company to work in its yarn factory in the capacity of card grinder. His duties were "to grind cards, look after and keep on all of the belts of the card machines, and keep them running. The card referred to is a manufacturing machine which cards the cotton and prepares it for the drawing frames. * * * There are upon each machine five belts, which petitioner was required to watch, keep on, and keep running." He was required to look after a number of these machines. He alleges that the machines were situated in rows, with alleys about 5 feet wide between each row, and with a space varying from 16 to 25 inches between each machine; that defendant knew of the dangerous nature of the machines in question when being operated as petitioner was required to do, and for the purpose of furnishing light to enable petitioner to see how to perform his work as night approached had suspended overhead and down the center of each alley between the rows of machines, electric lights; that on February 1st, about 5:40 o'clock in the afternoon, when it was dark, petitioner was engaged in the performance of his duties in attempting to run on the driving belt of one of the machines in question, and in order to do this it was necessary for him to go between the pulleys of two cards in a space about 16 inches wide; that' he was caught by the driving belt of one of the cards, and was thrown with great force and violence into the doffer gear of the grinding card, terribly lacerating and breaking his right arm. He alleges that at the time he was injured the electric lights suspended above the machines were out of order and not burning; that the defendant knew of their defective condition, and had promised repeatedly to have them repaired; and that his failure to do so was negligence. He further alleges that he was commanded by defendant to do this work; that he was without fault or negligence, but that by reason of the insufficiency of the light, the engrossing nature of his duties, and his ignorance of the dangers incident to this work at this particular time, not having been warned of them by the superintendent, he was injured as before stated.

There is no error in the judgment excepted to. Conceding the truth of all properly pleaded allegations of the plaintiff's petition, the defendant is not liable. The plaintiff had been working in the defendant's mill as a card grinder for about five months. Part of his duty as such was to adjust belts on the carding machines when they slipped out ofplace. He was In a position to know the dangers incident to this kind of work. It is difficult to see why, by the exercise of ordinary powers of observation, he could not have at the time ascertained whether there was sufficient...