Dartmouth Spinning Co v. Achard

Decision Date02 December 1889
Citation84 Ga. 14,10 S.E. 449
PartiesDartmouth Spinning Co. v. Achard.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Master and Servant—Risks op Employment.

A machinist employed by a corporation in its factory, not to use machinery, but to keep it in good order, and having knowledge that some of it is imperfect, and that employes cannot be relied upon to prevent it from becoming dangerous for lack of oil, takes the risk of discovering the condition of the machinery at the time he attempts to repair it, such risk being incident to his vocation. The incompetency or negligence of other employes, or of officers or agents of the corporation, resulting in putting the machinery out of order and rendering it dangerous, will not make the corporation liable for an injury which he sustains in handling the machinery while engaged, without their assistance, in repairing it.1

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Richmond county; Ronky, Judge.

J. S. & W. T. Davidson, for plaintiff in error. M.P. Foster and Twiggs & Verdery, for defendant in error.

Bleckley, C. J. According to the declaration, the plaintiff, a skilled carpenter and machinist, erected and put up machinery for the defendant company which he knew was unsafe, as to certain parts of it, for the lack of self-oilers. He knew that no employe could be relied upon to keep it oiled, and that the omission to oil it properly would render it dangerous. He admonished the company of the danger, protested more than once against the omission to supply the needed self-oilers, and warned the company, even down to the day he was injured, to have the oiling duly attended to. But the company, though promising to heed his repeated notices and warnings, failed to do so. He nevertheless remained in its employment, and suffered himself to continue charged with the duty of giving such attention to the machinery from time to time, save as to oiling and running it, as might be needed, and of performing, in the capacity of carpenter and machinist, everything requisite to be done, or that he might be ordered to do. Twice on the same day his services became requisite in the spinning-room to make corrections or repairs in the machniery. The first time the trouble was caused by the want of oiling; and this he discovered, and made known to the boss. Later in the day he was again called upon, in a sudden emergency, by the boss, to look after the shafting, which was without self-oilers, and put it in order. He found the main belt had been taken off and that the shafting had ceased running, and was still. For lack of oil, the end of the shaft and the hanger had become very hot; but he did not know that the oiling had been neglected, or that the babbitt had completely melted. While he was in the act of taking off the belts with extra care, the shaft and five pulleys, the whole weighing over 600 pounds, fell upon him, and he was severely injured. The melting of the babbitt was the imme...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Lloyd v. Southern Ry. Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1914
    ...to repair a wire that fed a lamp with an electric current, which had failed in some way. We there referred to Spinning Co. v. Achord, 84 Ga. 14, 16, 10 S. E. 449, 6 L. R. A. 190, in which Chief Justice Bleckley gave the homely, but apt, illustration that the physician might as well insist o......
  • Lloyd v. Southern Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 26 Mayo 1914
    ... ... current, which had failed in some way. We there referred to ... Spinning Co. v. Achord, 84 Ga. 14, 16, 10 S.E. 449, ... 6 L. R. A. 190, in which Chief Justice Bleckley ... ...
  • Fulton Ice & Coal Co v. Pece
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 10 Febrero 1923
    ...a cause of action in this particular respect. 3. We are asked to apply in this case the rule announced in Dartmouth Spinning Co. v. Achord, 84 Ga. 14, 10 S. E. 449, 6 L. R. A. 190, to the effect that a repairer of machinery assumes the risk of defects which he is called upon to repair or wh......
  • Arkansas Land & Lumber Co. v. Cooper
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 27 Noviembre 1922
    ... ... The reason for the rule is ... aptly stated in the case of the Dartmouth Spinning ... Co. v. Achord, 84 Ga. 14, [156 Ark. 65] 6 ... L.R.A. 190. In that case BLECKLEY, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT