Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Braswell
| Decision Date | 30 October 1893 |
| Citation | 18 S.E. 1015,92 Ga. 631 |
| Parties | CHATTAHOOCHEE BRICK CO. v. BRASWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In the trial of an action for physical injuries against two defendants, as joint tort feasors, an instruction by the court that there was no evidence warranting a finding against one of them wrought no injury to the other, it appearing from the record that the defendant discharged by the instruction of the court would not be liable to contribution in favor of the one against whom the verdict was rendered.
2. The rule forbidding a recovery from his master by a servant who subjects himself to injury by going, without objection, into a place known by him to be dangerous is not applicable to a convict, whose movements are controlled and directed by a guard or boss having and exercising the power of compelling the convict to obey his orders.
3. The plaintiff, a convict, having been leased by the state to a penitentiary company, and that company having hired him, with other convicts, to another corporation engaged in the work of constructing a railroad, and he having been put to work under the control of a guard, employed and paid by the latter corporation, and being required to obey the orders of such guard, this corporation is liable to the plaintiff for injuries received in consequence of his having gone, under orders from the guard, into a place where a dangerous explosive was being used, although all the convicts so hired may have been under the general charge of a "captain," appointed by the governor. This is true whether it was, or was not, lawful for such convicts to be placed under the control and management of the guard.
4. The evidence was conflicting, but taking as true the version of it most favorable to the plaintiff, the verdict was warranted, and there was no error in denying a new trial.
Error from city court of Atlanta; Howard Van Epps, Judge.
Action for personal injuries by Dock Braswell against the Chattahoochee Brick Company and another. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant brick company brings error. Affirmed.
Ellis & Gray, for plaintiff in error.
Broyles & Son, for defendant in error.
1. The plaintiff brought an action for personal injuries against the Chattahoochee Brick Company and Georgia Penitentiary Company No. 2, as joint tort feasors, which resulted in a verdict in his favor against the company first named. One ground of the motion for a new trial is that the court erred in charging as follows: "There is no evidence warranting a finding against the Penitentiary Company No. 2, and I confine your attention to the case as developed in reference to the Chattahoochee Brick Company." If it appeared from the evidence set forth in the record that the penitentiary company would be liable to contribution to the brick company the complaint as to the charge quoted might be meritorious but, under the undisputed facts of this case, it is clear that there is no such liability on the part of the penitentiary company. It did not cause, and was in no way connected with or responsible for, the injuries sustained by the plaintiff; indeed, was guilty of no wrong whatever unless the hiring by it of the plaintiff, along with other convicts, to the brick company was an unlawful act. It is not necessary to decide whether this hiring was lawful or not and we do not wish to be understood as making any ruling upon this question. If it was lawful, then the penitentiary company had nothing whatever to do with the infliction of the injuries upon the plaintiff, and most clearly is not, and could not be in any view, liable to the brick company. Even if it was unlawful, still there was no liability by the former to the latter company, because the evidence shows conclusively that, as between themselves, there was no fault or blame attaching to the penitentiary company. While, under certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Camp Corp. v. Helmy, 45285
...sought to be held liable was a party defendant in the plaintiff's case. OCGA § 51-12-32 (Code § 105-2012); Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Braswell, 92 Ga. 631(1), 18 S.E. 1015 (1893); Dent v. King, 1 Ga. 200 (1846); Dodge Trucks, Inc. v. Wilson, 140 Ga.App. 743(1), 231 S.E.2d 818 (1976); So. Ry......
-
Irwin v. Arrendale, 43127
...injuries suffered while in confinement as the result of the negligence of the company to which he was leased; Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Braswell, 92 Ga. 631, 18 S.E. 1015, holding that a convict may recover, from a corporation to which he was leased, for personal injuries received when a g......
-
Raif v. State
...admissible. In reply to this contention it is only necessary to refer to the language of Justice Lumpkin in Chattahoochee Brick Company v. Braswell, 92 Ga. 631, 634, 18 S.E. 1015: 'The plaintiff was a convict, and, according to the evidence, his movements were absolutely controlled and dire......
-
Jacobs v. Rittenbaum
... ... 717, 48 ... S.E. 326; Austin v. Appling, 88 Ga. 54(5), 13 S.E ... 955; Chattahoochee Brick Co. v. Braswell, 92 Ga ... 631, 18 S.E. 1015; Hollingsworth v. Howard, 113 Ga ... ...