Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Hilderbrand

• Decision Date: 20 December 1933
• Docket Number: 23250.
• Citation: 172 S.E. 87,48 Ga.App. 140
• Parties: NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. v. HILDERBRAND.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

172 S.E. 87

48 Ga.App. 140

NASHVILLE, C. & ST. L. RY. v. HILDERBRAND.

No. 23250.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

December 20, 1933

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Petition against railroad for injuries employee sustained by reason of bolt negligently placed on depot platform held not demurrable on ground that petition did not expressly allege that employee did not have equal means with master of knowing of danger.

Petition alleged that the bolt was negligently placed on the platform by a fellow servant, and the presence thereof was known to defendant railroad, or, by the exercise of ordinary care should have been known, and that the employee did not know of the presence of the bolt on the platform and could not have known thereof by the exercise of ordinary care, in that the bolt was on the other side of a pair of trucks of the employee and hidden from his view, and the employee could not have ascertained the presence thereof.

Every one must use ordinary care to protect invitees from injury.

Servant while bound to observe obvious dangers, may assume that master has performed duty of furnishing him with safe place to work, and need not make inspection to discover latent defects.

Danger arising from unsafe place to work is not risk assumed by servant.

Where defect in premises causing servant's injury is latent master is bound to discover it sooner than servant, because master owes servant duty of inspection.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Virlyn B. Moore, Judge.

Suit by E. Q. Hilderbrand against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway. To review a judgment overruling its demurrer to the petition, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

Tye, Thomson & Tye, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Carpenter & Ellis, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

SUTTON Judge.

1. Where a petition against a master alleges that the plaintiff, a servant, was injured while walking on a platform at the freight depot of the master, a railroad company, the same being the place at which the plaintiff was performing his work, by reason of a bolt negligently placed on the platform by a fellow servant, the presence of which was known to the defendant, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have been known, and that the plaintiff did not know of the presence of such bolt on the platform and could not have known thereof by the exercise of ordinary care, in that such bolt was on the other side of a pair of trucks of the defendant and hidden from his view, and plaintiff could not have ascertained the presence thereof, the same was not subject to be dismissed on demurrer on the ground that it did not expressly allege that the plaintiff did not have equal means with the master of knowing of the danger which caused the injury. Lawrenceville Oil Mill v. Walton, 143 Ga. 259, 84 S.E. 584; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Dobbs, 38 Ga.App. 239, 143 S.E. 601; Terry Shipbuilding Co. v. Griffian, 153 Ga. 390, 394, 112 S.E. 374; Moody v. Hardeman, 44 Ga.App. 676, 162 S.E. 653.

2. The...