International Cotton Mills v. Webb

• Decision Date: 15 May 1918
• Docket Number: 9257.
• Citation: 96 S.E. 16,22 Ga.App. 309
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL COTTON MILLS v. WEBB.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

96 S.E. 16

22 Ga.App. 309

INTERNATIONAL COTTON MILLS v. WEBB.

No. 9257.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

May 15, 1918

Syllabus by the Court.

The term "vice principal," as used in the fellow-servant law, includes any servant who represents the master in the discharge of those personal or absolute duties which every master owes to his servants; such duties being often referred to as the nonassignable duties of the master among which are, providing suitable machinery and appliances a safe place to work, the proper inspection and repair of premises and appliances, the selection and retention of suitable servants, the establishment of proper rules and regulations, and the instruction of servants as to the kind and manner of work to be done by them. Augusta Factory v Barnes, 72 Ga. 217, 53 Am.Rep. 838; Taylor v Georgia Marble Co., 99 Ga. 513, 27 S.E. 768, 59 Am.St.Rep. 238; City Council of Augusta v. Owens, 111 Ga. 464, 36 S.E. 830; Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609, 56 S.E. 839, 10 L.R.A. (N. S.) 772.

Among the absolute, continuous, and nonassignable duties of the master to the servant is the duty of the former to furnish the latter a safe place to work, and to refrain from giving orders which will require the servant to put himself in a position where he will be subject to risk of injury from a dangerous instrumentality. Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609, 56 S.E. 839, 10 L.R.A. (N. S.) 772; Columbus Mfg. Co. v. Gray, 9 Ga.App. 738, 72 S.E. 273; Cherokee Brick Co. v. Hampton, 16 Ga.App. 53, 84 S.E. 328. But even the direct and immediate order of the master will not justify a servant in rashly exposing himself to a known and obvious danger; and if, in compliance with the command in such cases, the servant be injured, he cannot recover of the master therefor. Southern Cotton-Oil Co. v. Gladman, 1 Ga.App. 259, 58 S.E. 249 (6). If, however, a servant, although an adult and fully cognizant of his general duty in reference to the machine, and aware of the dangers ordinarily incident to its operation, obeys a direct order of a servant authorized by his master to give the direction, in reference to the mode and manner of operating the machine, and injury results, the master is liable, provided the act required to be done is not so obviously dangerous that no reasonably prudent man would undertake to perform it. Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609, 56 S.E. 839, 10 L.R.A. (N. S.) 772.

While ordinarily the law reads into contracts of employment an agreement on the servant's part to assume the known risks of the employment, so far as he has the capacity to realize and comprehend them, yet this implication may be abrogated by an express or implied contract to the contrary. Thus, if the servant complains to the master that the instrumentality appears to be...