Ludd v. Wilkins

• Decision Date: 13 August 1903
• Citation: 45 S.E. 429,118 Ga. 525
• Parties: LUDD v. WILKINS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

45 S.E. 429

118 Ga. 525

LUDD v. WILKINS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 13, 1903

Syllabus by the Court.

1. This being an action against a master to recover damages for the homicide of a servant, and it appearing from the evidence that, even if the servant did not know of the fact which is charged as negligence against the master, he had equal means with the master of knowing it, and by the exercise of ordinary care could have discovered the same, there was no error in granting a nonsuit.

Error from City Court of Atlanta; A. E. Calhoun, Judge.

Action by Bettie Ludd against Grant Wilkins. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

W. C Cousins and Westmoreland Bros., for plaintiff in error.

King & Spalding and Ellis, Wimbish & Ellis, for defendant in error.

COBB J.

Mrs Ludd brought suit against Wilkins for damages for the homicide of her husband, alleging that it was brought about by the negligence of the defendant. The judge granted a nonsuit, and this is the error assigned. The defendant was engaged as a contractor in constructing in the city of Atlanta what is known as the "Whitehall Street Viaduct." The husband of the plaintiff was an employé engaged at work upon the viaduct, and at the time of receiving the injury which resulted in his death was engaged in putting in place a piece of iron, and standing on or near iron brackets which received these iron pieces. Planks had been placed, extending from one bracket to the other, for employés to stand upon while engaged at work. These planks were apt to slip off the brackets. There was evidence that this slipping could have been prevented by nailing pieces under each end of the plank, or by putting a bolt through each end, or a 10-penny nail, or by tying the plank to the bracket. None of these methods were adopted. The plank was laid loosely upon the brackets. There is no evidence that there were any defects in any of the planks. The plank upon which plaintiff's husband was standing had slipped to a point where walking upon it would cause one end to leave the bracket, and this precipitated him to the street below, and he died as a consequence of this fall. The negligence alleged was that the defendant failed to have the plank braced or secured so as to prevent the same from slipping; that it was the defendant's duty to furnish the deceased with a safe place to work, and to do this it was incumbent upon him to have the plank...