Hazlehurst v. Brunswick Lumber Co.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1894
• Citation: 19 S.E. 756,94 Ga. 535
• Parties: HAZLEHURST v. BRUNSWICK LUMBER CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

19 S.E. 756

94 Ga. 535

HAZLEHURST v. BRUNSWICK LUMBER CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 30, 1894

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence showing that the danger of the work in which the plaintiff was voluntarily engaged must have been as obvious to himself as to his employer; that there was no emergency requiring him to expose himself to the danger; and that, if free from fault himself, the negligence, if any, which resulted in his injury, was that of a fellow servant,--he was not entitled to recover, and the court was right in granting a nonsuit.

Error from superior court, Glynn county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.

Action by Robert Hazlehurst against the Brunswick Lumber Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings, error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report:

Hazlehurst sued the Brunswick Lumber Company for damages from personal injuries. After the evidence for plaintiff had been introduced, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which motion was granted, and plaintiff excepted. The grounds of the motion were: (1) The evidence showed no fault on the part of defendant. (2) The evidence showed negligence of plaintiff and that, by exercising ordinary and reasonable care, he could have avoided the injury. (3) If plaintiff was injured as alleged, the principle of fellow servants and co-employes applied, and plaintiff could not recover. (4) Plaintiff could see the defect in the trucks, which was a patent defect, as much open to his knowledge as to that of defendant; and he knew of the danger, and his continuance in the service was a waiver of the danger, and he thereby consented to the injury and could not recover. During the trial, plaintiff offered to introduce evidence to show that defendant was insured against accidents to plaintiff, and what amount, and also to show the financial worth of defendant, so the jury might know better how to arrive at a proper measure of punitive damages in the case. Defendant objected to this evidence as illegal, which objection was sustained, and to this ruling plaintiff excepted. Plaintiff testified: At the time of the injury he was employed by defendant to drive a mule, hitched by a rope to trucks used to carry lumber from defendant's lumber yard to its dock. While thus in the discharge of his duty and without fault on his part, the lumber fell off the trucks, and against him, breaking his leg. The truck was 8 feet long and 3 feet wide, and the lumber on it 30 feet long and 8 by 10 inches in width and thickness. It was loaded in tiers on the truck, 5 tiers high. While moving along as usual with the team, the lumber fell off. The truck was too short to haul lumber of that length, and the lumber overbalanced and fell off. It would have been safer to have hauled the lumber on a longer truck. There were longer and wider trucks at the mill, but they could not be used on account of the lumber being piled so near the track. He did not know it was dangerous to haul lumber of that length and size on a truck 8 feet long. Had been employed at this work about three weeks when the injury occurred. The usual length of lumber hauled on the trucks before this was 12 to 15 feet. He had never hauled lumber as long as this. Had started with the second load of long lumber when the injury occurred. Had nothing do with the injury occurred. Had nothing do with the loading of lumber; four other hands were doing that. His duty was only to drive the mule, and keep it out of the way of the lumber so the lumber would not run on it. He had to watch the lumber and the mule both. The usual and proper...