O'neill Mfg. Co v. Pruitt

• Decision Date: 10 April 1900
• Citation: 110 Ga. 577,36 S.E. 59
• Parties: O'NEILL MFG. CO. v. PRUITT.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

110 Ga. 577

36 S.E. 59

O'NEILL MFG. CO.

v.PRUITT.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 10, 1900.

INJURY TO EMPLOYE—NEGLIGENCE OF MASTER—MISCONDUCT OF COUNSEL—DAMAGES. There was no error in any of the rulings or charges complained of; there was evidence to authorize the verdict, and. the trial judge being satisfied therewith, this court will not interfere with his discretion in refusing a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Floyd county; George A. H. Harris, Judge.

Action by E. J. Pruitt, by his next friend, against the O'Neill Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Reece & Denny, for plaintiff in error.

Wright & Ewing, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. Pruitt, a child 13 years of age, had his hand injured in the shop of the defendant company. He sued for damages. On the trial he exhibited his hand to the jury. The four fingers and part of the thumb had been cut off. He had been working in the defendant's shop for about three years when the injury occurred. He testified that it was necessary for him to have a certain kind of board in order to do the work assigned to him. He mentioned this to the foreman, and the latter instructed him to make one. The only machine on which he could make it was a very dangerous machine, called a "jointer." In attempting to make the board, his hand slipped, and he was injured. He had never received any warning from the foreman, or any one else, as to the dangerous character of this machine. Several other witnesses testified that shortly after the accident the foreman told them that he regretted having sent the boy to that machine. It was also shown that the boy's capacity to labor at the kind of employment in which he had been engaged was entirely gone. There was also proof of what he had been earning before his injury. The foreman testified that he did not send the boy to the machine to make the board, and, indeed, denied telling him to make the board at all. Other witnesses testified that the boy had been warned as to the dangerous character of the machinery in the shop, and instructed not to go near the machines; and that the boy, after he had been hurt, said it was all his fault. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,800. The defendant company made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. The defendant excepted.

In the examination of a witness the counsel for the plaintiff undertook to show that, if the defendant was held liable for the injury, an insurance company would pay the verdict. This was objected to by defendant's counsel, and was withdrawn by counsel for the plaintitt. No ruling was made by the judge. In the concluding address of plaintiff's counsel to the jury he stated that an insurance company would have to pay for the injury if the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. This was objected to by defendant's counsel, and the court promptly called to order the plaintiff's counsel, informing him that there was no evidence to support such statements, and that it was improper to make such an argument. The court then instructed the jury to disregard what plaintiff's counsel had said, and told them there was no such evidence before them. All this was made one of the grounds of the motion for new trial. We see no error on the part of the Judge with regard to this matter. As to the first part of it, relating to the offering of the illegal evidence, no ruling was made by the...