Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills

• Decision Date: 15 February 1907
• Citation: Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills, 127 Ga. 609, 56 S.E. 839 (Ga. 1907)
• Parties: MOORE v. DUBLIN COTTON MILLS.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

56 S.E. 839

127 Ga. 609

MOORE v. DUBLIN COTTON MILLS.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 15, 1907

Syllabus by the Court.

Except in case of railroad companies, the master is not liable to one servant for an injury arising from the negligence or misconduct of other servants about the same business.

The term, "vice principal," as used in the fellow-servant law, has been defined as including 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 a master.

Among the nonassignable duties of the master are providing machinery and appliances, the place to work, the inspection and repair of premises and appliances, the selection and retention of servants, the establishment of proper rules and regulations, and the instruction of servants. This enumeration, however, is not exhaustive, but simply illustrative.

It is not the grade, or title, or the position in the service, that determines whether a person is a fellow servant or a vice principal of the master, but it is the duty which the servant performs towards the other servants.

Mere supervision, and nothing more, by one of a number of servants over the work in which they are engaged, will not necessarily raise the employé from the position of a fellow servant to that of a vice principal. Supervision, coupled with the discharge of other duties in connection therewith, may have this effect.

When the business of the master is connected with the operation of dangerous machinery and appliances, it is the duty of the master to provide rules for the conduct of his servants in the discharge of the duty imposed upon them in reference to the operation of such machinery and appliances. The master may discharge this duty by the promulgation of general rules on the subject, or he may authorize a servant to give general directions in the nature of rules governing the matter.

When the master authorizes a servant to give general directions in reference to the manner and mode in which his business shall be carried on, and such business embraces the operation of dangerous machinery and appliances, a general order, given by such servant to those with whom he is working, to be followed on each and every occasion when the act involved is to be performed, is, in effect, an order from the master, and, if the servant is injured, the master is responsible, provided the injured servant is free from such negligence as would preclude a recovery, and obedience to the order resulted in injury for the reason that there was a latent danger in the operation of the machine, which the master knew or ought to have known.

When the servant seeks to hold the master responsible under the rule stated in the preceding note, it is incumbent upon him to show, not only that the order was given and obeyed, but that the order involved an act of such character that, from the nature of things, the direction must have emanated from the master, and it must also appear that the servant who gave it was in terms authorized by the master to give the general order, or that the scope of his employment was such that his authority extended to giving general orders of that character.

While the words "superintendent," "foreman," "overseer," and the like, do not necessarily import that the employé bearing such title was the vice principal of the master, this fact, in connection with the character of the work and the character of the order given in reference to the operation of dangerous machinery, may be sufficient to raise a question for the jury as to whether such servant was on the occasion in question, the vice principal of the master, or only a fellow servant of the plaintiff.

When the evidence in its entirety is taken in its most favorable light for the plaintiff, it presented questions for the determination of a jury, and it was error to grant a nonsuit.

Error from City Court of Dublin; J. E. Burch, Judge.

Action by John Moore, by next friend, against the Dublin Cotton Mills. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

In an action for injuries to a servant, evidence considered, and held to present the question for the jury as to whether the danger was not so obvious to plaintiff that he was negligent in obeying the command which he was obeying when he was injured.

John Moore, a minor, brought suit by his next friend against the Dublin Cotton Mills. He amended his petition in stated particulars after it was filed. As amended, the petition contained the following allegations, in substance: The Dublin Cotton Mills is a corporation under the laws of this state. Plaintiff was employed by it and assigned to the duty of operating a carding machine. As a part of said machine there are three cylinders--one in front, known as the "doffer"; one in the middle, known as the "main cylinder"; and the third located in the rear of the machine. It is so constructed that the doffer may be stopped while the main cylinder and the other machinery continue to revolve. The doffer and the main cylinder come together inside of the press, and, where these cylinders come together, a box is located which is intended to catch the waste and fragments of lint; the box being inside of said machine and inclosed. To remove the waste and clean the box it is necessary to open a small door, 12 inches by 12 inches and insert a brush or rake. This box extends the length of the cylinder, which is about six feet, and it is about two feet wide at the bottom, extending upward, in a converging manner, about three feet, to where the doffer and the main cylinder unite, making the top of the box much smaller than the bottom. The cylinders are protected by a metal covering, which extends upward in the box to a point about six inches from the top, leaving the cylinders exposed for about six inches in space at the top of the box. The only light conveyed into the box is through the small door above referred to; thus making it impossible to ascertain that the cylinders are exposed at the top. The main cylinder is coated with wire teeth, and, when revolving rapidly, is very dangerous, and at the top of the box, where exposed, will catch any object that may come in contact with it, and draw it under the metal covering. To clean the box thoroughly, it is necessary to place the hand inside of the box, so as to properly use the brush or rake. A rule of the defendant required that the machine should be cleaned every Friday. Before undertaking this task plaintiff would stop the machinery and all of the rollers connected with the machine, and proceed to clean the same, using the brush provided for that purpose, which was about 18 inches long. On Friday, March 4, 1904, plaintiff stopped the machine, and had just finished cleaning the box and removing the waste when N. S. West, the alter ego of defendant with respect to plaintiff, and who was at that time, and is now superintendent of defendant, in charge of the work, and in control of the employés, whose orders plaintiff was bound to obey, came to plaintiff, and, noticing that the machinery was stopped, protested against plaintiff carrying on his work in this manner, and in a very commanding manner told plaintiff that there was no use or sense in stopping the machinery to clean the box, and instructed plaintiff to do so no more, telling him that he should shut off the doffer, but not to shut off the other machinery, and that the main cylinder was covered, and there was no danger in cleaning out the box with it running. On the following Friday, when the time arrived for cleaning the machine, the plaintiff being unacquainted with the machinery and not knowing that at the top of the box the main cylinder was uncovered and exposed and dangerous, and having been informed to the contrary by the superintendent, West, and believing his statement that there was no danger in removing the waste from the box with the cylinder running, and it being apparently safe for him so to do, and it being his duty to carry out the instructions of the superintendent, it being impossible for him to see, from his position, that it was not safe to obey the order, he proceeded to do so, shutting off the doffer and allowing the main cylinder to run. After so doing, he began, in a careful and prudent manner, to remove the waste from the box, using the brush or rake furnished for that purpose. While in the prosecution of this task, he extended his hand just inside of the box in order to brush the waste from the top (which was necessary), feeling absolutely confident that the superintendent had told him the truth--that there was no danger. The main cylinder at that time revolving rapidly, the wire teeth on the cylinder, where exposed at the top, caught the brush and pulled plaintiff's hand between the cylinder and the metal covering, mashing and crushing the thumb and wrist of the left hand, rendering them permanently stiff, and so mutilating three fingers that they had to be amputated. At the time of the injury the plaintiff was only 16 years of age, and had been working about the machinery only a few weeks. He knew nothing about machinery, and his injury resulted from the misplaced faith and confidence which he placed in the statement of the superintendent as to the manner in which the machine could be safely operated. Plaintiff did not know that the cylinder was exposed, and did not know of the danger incident to cleaning the box with the cylinder running, and had never been warned of such danger; but, on the contrary, had been instructed that there was none. It is alleged that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the cylinder was unprotected and exposed at the top, and...