Mcgovern v. The Columbus Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 October 1887 |
| Citation | 80 Ga. 227 |
| Parties | McGovern. vs. The Columbus Manufacturing Company. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Master and servant. Damages. Negligence. Officers. Before Judge Willis. Muscogee superior court. November adjourned term, 1886.
The plaintiff made the following allegations: He was employed by defendant, a cotton manufacturing company, to attend to one of their machines, called a picker, in their regular business. It was his duty to manage it, and while in the discharge of his duties connected therewith, without fault on his part, the company's servants turned steam on the machine and started it in motion at a time when, by the rules of the company and the orders of its officers, it was his duty to introduce his hand into the interior of said machine, it having been stopped for that purpose. Thesteam was turned on without warning to him and the machine was thereby put into violent and rapid motion, and his hand, being therein, was torn, causing him great suffering, etc. He then set forth his damages.
He amended by alleging as follows: In the discharge of his duty, he was put by defendant under the direction of one Yancey, who was in charge of the room with authority to command all work therein and manage the same absolutely. The picker was stopped for the purpose of being cleaned, and in doing this it was necessary for the plaintiff to introduce his hands into the interior, where there were cogs, wheels and other fixtures; while so engaged, Yancey negligently and without warning to plaintiff, and without his knowledge, and knowing that plaintiff was so engaged, applied the steam to the machine and put it in rapid motion, whereby plaintiff was injured, etc. The injury was caused by the gross negligence of Yancey, and plaintiff was entirely free from fault.
He further amended as follows: The picker was operated by water-power, and it was Yancey's duty to put on and take off the power so as to run and stop the machines at pleasure. He was placed by defendant over plaintiff to direct and govern him, he being only an operative with no authority to turn power off and on. Yancey had higher duties and received higher wages. It became plaintiff's duty to clean the picker, and for this purpose Yancey stopped the machine. While necessarily having his hands in the machine to clean it, Yancey, without notice or warning, negligently turned the power on and started the machine into rapid motion, whereby plaintiff, without fault on his part, was injured, etc.
Upon the trial the only evidence was that of the plaintiff, who testified as follows: He was raised to work in a factory in the north; had worked in this one six months. That was his regular business. Two other men worked in the picker room; Yancey...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills
...to the principle that one charged with a duty of providing a safe place for work is the vice principal of the master. In McGovern's Case, 80 Ga. 227, 5 S.E. 492, the was a workman in the picker room of the factory, with two others, one of whom had the direction of the work therein as forema......
- The Phenix Ins. Co. v. Fulton