Ga. R.R. & Banking Co v. Rayford
| Decision Date | 19 July 1902 |
| Citation | 115 Ga. 937,42 S.E. 234 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO. v. RAYFORD. |
INJURY TO EMPLOYE—PETITION.
1. The petition being in substance sufficient, there was no error in overruling a general demurrer thereto.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Fulton county; J. H. Lumpkin, Judge.
Action by George Rayford against the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company. Demurrer to petition was overruled, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Jos. B. & Bryan Cuming and Sanders Mc-Daniel, for plaintiff in error.
Fred Burrows and P. F. Smith, for defendant in error.
FISH, J. George Rayford sued the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company, and the case is here upon exceptions to the overruling of a general demurrer to the petition. The allegations of the petition, material to the consideration of the attack made upon it are that the petitioner and several other laborers, all in the employment of the defendant company, and under the charge and direct supervision of one Asbury, an agent of the defendant, were engaged in moving certain steel rails from one car to another; that Asbury pointed out a certain rail, and directed petitioner to assist in moving it; that petitioner complied with such direction, and when the rail was lifted, the moving of it caused one of the other rails in the pile to roll down on the petitioner's foot, crushing it, causing him great pain, and rendering him unable to work for several months; that his injuries were due to no negligence or carelessness on his part, but were caused by the carelessness and recklessness of Asbury; that "Asbury, by exercising the slightest care or caution, could have seen that it was dangerous for petitioner to lift the rail as ordered, and * * * he could have prevented petitioner from getting injured, but * * * it was Impossible for petitioner to see, from his position, that it was not safe to obey the order given him." The contentions of the plaintiff in error are that the petition shows the work which petitioner was directed to perform was such as the most ordinary intelligence could comprehend; that one man, as well as another, could see the danger of disturbing the equilibrium of the pile of rails by moving one of them; that if the foreman, by the slightest care or caution, could have seen that it was dangerous for petitioner to lift the rail, the petitioner could certainly have done likewise, and, if he could not, he should have plainly and distinctly alleged sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Register v. Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer Co.
... ... recover. Pullman Co. v. Martin, 92 Ga. 161, 18 S.E ... 364; Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Rayford, 115 Ga. 937, ... 42 S.E. 234. The plaintiff in this case could hardly admit ... that the ... ...
-
Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co v. Brandenburg
...so easy for him to make a specific averment. In the cases of Central R. Co. v. Hubbard, 86 Ga. 623. 12 S. E. 1020, and Georgia R. Co. v. Rayford, 115 Ga. 937, 42 S. E. 234, it was held that, as against a general demurrer, an allegation that the plaintiff was without fault was sufficient. Se......
-
Douglas, A. & G.R. Co. v. Swindle
... ... Western Union Tel. Co., 1 ... Ga.App. 821, 58 S.E. 83; Ga. R. Co. v. Rayford, ... 115 Ga. 937, 42 S.E. 234; Ferrill v. Perryman, 34 ... Ga. 576; Eagle & Phenix Co. v. Welch, ... ...
-
Hartridge v. Savannah News-Press, Inc.
...against general demurrer is whether the defendant can admit all that is alleged and still escape liability. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Rayford, 115 Ga. 937, 42 S.E. 234; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Martin, 92 Ga. 161, 18 S.E. 364." Harvey v. Zell, 87 Ga.App. 280, 284(1d), 73 S.E.2d 605......