Berryton Mills v. Parham

• Decision Date: 29 January 1919
• Docket Number: 9864.
• Citation: Berryton Mills v. Parham, 98 S.E. 241, 23 Ga.App. 334 (Ga. App. 1919)
• Parties: BERRYTON MILLS v. PARHAM.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

98 S.E. 241

23 Ga.App. 334

BERRYTON MILLS v. PARHAM.

No. 9864.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

January 29, 1919

Syllabus by the Court.

"In order for a servant to recover for an injury on the ground that it resulted from his compliance with a direct order of his master, or of his master's representative, the servant must show that the order was a negligent one."

In this case the injury received by the plaintiff was the result of the negligence of a fellow servant, and it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Chattooga County; J. E. Rosser, Judge pro hac.

Suit by R. M. Parham against the Berryton Mills. Judgment for plaintiff, motion for new trial overruled, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Denny & Wright, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Murray & Draper and Glenn & Napier, all of Chattanooga, Tenn., and Wesley Shropshire, of Summerville, for defendant in error.

LUKE J.

Parham brought his action for damages against the Berryton Mills, a manufacturing corporation, to the March term, 1917, of Chattooga superior court, alleging substantially that he was injured by defendant in the sum of $10,000 on July 29, 1916 that he was employed some four months prior by the defendant through one Gus Hudson, vice principal of defendant, as fireman of boilers; his regular duty under his employment was to fire the boilers, but he was required to perform such other services about said mill or plant as might be directed by defendant through said Hudson, foreman and vice principal that on July 29, 1916, defendant had two boilers of approximate capacity of 150 horse power each; that these boilers are located in the boiler room of defendant's plant and are situated alongside and within a very few feet of one another, and are used for generating steam power to drive the machinery of the plant; that the boilers are connected by a pipe line through which the mud and sediment which accumulated in the boilers is drawn or allowed to escape; that along this pipe line are located two valves known as mud valves, one of which is located alongside and on the outside of each boiler, and by means of such valves the mud and sediment is forced by steam to escape from said boilers through said pipe line and into another waste line of pipe connecting about midway between said boilers, which also has a valve to open and close said waste pipe line; that the escape of steam is controlled by the valve nearest the boiler, and when the three valves are open, or waste valve closed and the other two opened, the steam from one boiler will escape into the other; that on said July 29th the plaintiff was directed by said vice principal, Hudson, to go into a boiler and fix a water pipe in one of the boilers which was leaking, the boiler having been cooled down; even that the plaintiff stated that he did not want to do so, for he did not know about the danger or anything about it, but he was assured by said vice principal, Hudson, that the place was safe, and that there was no danger, and Hudson directed him to enter and go right into the boiler and do the work that he was not aware of the danger incident to said service and, relying on the assurance of said vice principal, he entered said boiler, and entered on the discharge of said duties required of him therein; that he had not, and could not have had by the exercise of ordinary care, such means of knowing the risk as the defendant had; that while he was engaged in said work in the boiler, the fireman fired the other boiler under order of said vice principal, opened the mud valve nearest the boiler which was being fired by him, and allowed steam to escape into said pipe line connecting the boilers; that the defendant negligently and without proper care and inspection had left open the mud valve next to the boiler in which the plaintiff was engaged, performing service as directed, and that the steam entered the boiler in which he was engaged, and scalded, burned, and permanently injured...