Harper v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 16 November 1917
• Docket Number: 8896.
• Citation: 94 S.E. 286,21 Ga.App. 322
• Parties: HARPER v. FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

94 S.E. 286

21 Ga.App. 322

HARPER v. FULTON BAG & COTTON MILLS.

No. 8896.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

November 16, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

The plaintiff alleged that he was an employé of the defendant working under Courley and Turner; that on the same floor on which he worked there was a different department under the supervision of Jim Clay, who had no authority or control over him; that between the room in which he worked and that in which Clay worked there was a hallway on one side of which was an elevator; that near the door in the room in which he worked there was a water hydrant; that he was sent by his superior officer to the shop of the defendant to perform a duty; that the nearest and most convenient way for him to go to the shop was through two rooms and then through the room where Clay worked, and on to the shop; that after he had finished his duty at the shop he returned through the room where Clay worked; that after passing through this room into the adjoining room he stopped to get a drink of water, and about the time he finished getting the water Clay came into the room where the hydrant was located, and assaulted him by beating him and shoving him back through the door near the elevator, and when near the elevator Clay gave him "a hard, vicious knock and lick," and he fell backwards against the door of the elevator and elevator shaft; that the door gave way under the impact of his weight and he fell into and through the elevator shaft, receiving injuries; that the door or gate to the elevator was loose and insecure, and this fact was not known to him, but was known to the defendant company, and by the exercise of ordinary care the defendant ought to have known of this defective condition; and that the defendant was negligent in having and using the defective door or gate, and in failing to inspect it and to keep it in proper repair, so as to prevent any one who might stumble or otherwise fall against it from being precipitated into said elevator shaft. To this petition the defendant demurred upon the grounds: (a) That no cause of action is set out against this defendant; (b) because the alleged negligence of the defendant was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury; (c) because, if defendant was negligent as alleged the criminal conduct of Clay intervened and was the proximate cause of the injury. Held, that it was not error to sustain the general demurrer and...