Hendrix v. Vale Royal Mfg. Co

• Decision Date: 30 June 1910
• Citation: 134 Ga. 712,68 S.E. 483
• Parties: HENDRIX v. VALE ROYAL MFG. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 S.E. 483

134 Ga. 712

HENDRIX v.VALE ROYAL MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 30, 1910.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Master and Servant (§§ 150, 155*)—Injury to Servant—Knowledge of Danger —Warning—Duty of Master.

In an action by a servant against a master for alleged failure of duty on the part of the latter in not giving to the servant warning of a danger incident to his employment, it must appear that the master knew or ought to have known of the danger, and that the servant injured did not know and had not equal means with the master of knowing such fact, and by the exercise of ordinary care could not have known it. If the danger be obvious and as easily known to the servant as to the master, the latter will not be liable for failing to give warning of it. Civ. Code 1895, §§ 2611, 2612; Commercial Guano Co. v. Neather, 114 Ga. 416, 40 S. E. 299; Crown Cotton Mills v. McNally, 123 Ga. 35, 51 S. E. 13, and cases cited. As the purpose of instructions by the master to an inexperienced servant is to enable the servant to avoid dangers incident to his employment, if the servant knows of such dangers instructions are unnecessary. Crown Cotton Mills v. McNally 127 Ga. 404, 56 S. E. 452. In the absence of anything to the contrary, every adult is presumed to possess such ordinary intelligence, judgment, and discretion as will enable him to appreciate obvious danger. Therefore an adult servant of ordinary intelligence will be held to be affected with knowledge of a manifest risk or danger incident to the doing of a particular thing in the operation of a machine, during his employment, although he may be Inexperienced as to such operation and though the master may have failed to instruct him in respect thereto. 1 Labatt, Master and Servant, § 394, and cases cited.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 297, 299-302, 305-307, 310; Dec. Dig. S§ 150, 155.*]

2. Demurrer to Petition.

Applying these principles to the allegations of the petition in the present case, no cause of action was set forth, and the court properly sustained a general demurrer to the petition.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; W. G. Charlton, Judge.

Action by B. J. Hendrix against the Vale Royal Manufacturing Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

The substance of the petition, now material, was as follows: The plaintiff, 27 years of age, without experience in the operation of saws, was employed by defendant to operate a "bolting" saw in a shingle mill, and was instructed by defendant in its use. He continually operated the "bolting" saw for two weeks, when he was directed by defendant to operate a "shingle" saw. Being unfamiliar with the operation of a "shingle" saw, he so informed the defendant and asked to be instructed as to its operation. Defendant replied that instructions were not necessary, and directed the plaintiff to proceed to use the saw. He therefore began the operation of the "shingle" saw, "and, while making the first attempt to remove waste product remaining from the making of shingles, had his left hand caught by the machinery of the shingle saw, " and three of his fingers thereby cut off. It was alleged, that a "bolting" saw is operated by hand, its purpose being to cut...