Maloy v. Port Royal & W. C. Ry. Co
| Decision Date | 08 July 1895 |
| Citation | 97 Ga. 295,22 S.E. 588 |
| Parties | MALOY. v. PORT ROYAL & W. C. RY. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Injury to Railroad Employe—Pleading.
A declaration filed by an employe of a railroad company to recover damages for injuries inflicted upon him in consequence of the negligence of a coemploye, which states the nature of the employment, the character of the work in which they were engaged, the extent of the injuries, and the amount of the damages, and likewise the circumstances under which he was injured, —the latter being stated with such particularity as to show that he was himself free from fault, and was injured solely because of the negligence of his fellow servants, — sets forth substantially a cause of action, and a dismissal upon demurrer was erroneous.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court, Richmond county; W. P. Eve, Judge,
Action by Robert Maloy against the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
The following is the substance of the official report:
The declaration alleged that plaintiff was employed by the railroad company as a section hand to work on the line of the road, in building and repairing tracks, bridges, and trestles used and necessary in the running of the trains of the company. It became his duty, in company with others, to line the trestle, the track on and about the trestle being out of line; and, in the courseof straightening it, it became necessary to line the trestle by placing, at the bottom, or near the supports or benches, of the trestle, blocks to serve as props or fulcrums, against which a lever or long pole was placed in order to prize forward or upward, as required. For the safety of those engaged in prizing, it became necessary that the block or fulcrum should be securely placed, and so arranged that it should not slip. Plaintiff was engaged in another part of the work, awaiting the fixing of the block, when he was called to assist in the prizing; and in compliance therewith, and in the due course of his duty, be went to the place where the prizing was to be done, and, relying on the safe and secure placing and fixing of the prop, with the other employes he took hold of the long and heavy pole used as a lever, and in the line of his duty began, with all proper care and diligence, to pull thereon for the purpose of prizing the bench of the trestle; and without fault on his part, and by the mere fault, negligence, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fisher v. Ga. Northern Ry. Co, (No. 16956.)
...servant. Babcock Co. v. Johnson, 120 Ga. 1030, 48 S. E. 438. There is no similarity between the present case and Maloy v. Port Royal R. Co., 97 Ga. 295, 22 S. E. 588, nor does it appear that there had ever been any chipping off before, as in Harvey v. Rome Co., 13 Ga. App. 571, 79 S. E. 487......
-
Fisher v. Georgia Northern Ry. Co.
...fellow servant. Babcock Co. v. Johnson, 120 Ga. 1030, 48 S.E. 438. There is no similarity between the present case and Maloy v. Port Royal R. Co., 97 Ga. 295, 22 S.E. 588, nor it appear that there had ever been any chipping off before, as in Harvey v. Rome Co., 13 Ga.App. 571, 79 S.E. 487. ......