Railey v. Garbutt

• Decision Date: 27 November 1900
• Parties: RAILEY v. GARBUTT et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

37 S.E. 360

112 Ga. 288

RAILEY v. GARBUTT et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 27, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

1. In a suit by a servant against a master, not a railroad company for damages alleged to have been sustained on account of the negligence of the master, the burden of proving such negligence rests upon the plaintiff, and there is a presumption that the master has discharged his duty to the servant, and is not at fault.

2. Except in cases of railroad companies, the master is not liable to one servant for injuries arising from the negligence of another servant about the same business.

3. A woodcutter and a locomotive engineer in charge of a train used for the purpose of hauling timber to a sawmill and of transporting employes of their common master from the mill to their respective places of work are fellow servants.

Error from superior court, Laurens county; John C. Hart, Judge.

Action by Church Railey against T. W. Garbutt & Co. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Sanders & Adams, A. H. Davis, and T. L. Griner, for plaintiff in error.

A. F Daley and W. R. Daley, for defendants in error.

COBB J.

Railey sued Garbutt & Co., a partnership, for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the negligence of the defendants. Upon the trial the following appeared to be the undisputed facts in the case: The defendants owned a sawmill, and in connection with it operated a railroad for the purpose of hauling logs from the woods to their mill and of transporting their employes from their mill to the woods. Plaintiff was employed by them as a stock cutter, and was on a train of defendants, consisting of an engine, tender, and flat car, being transported to his place of work. The train was running backwards. At a point on the railroad the defendants had a switch which connected the main line of the railroad with a side track, and this switch had been left open. On the side track a number of timber trucks were standing about 10 feet from the main line. The switch was not locked or otherwise confined, and when the train reached the switch it left the main line, and ran into the side track, and, striking the trucks lying thereon, threw the plaintiff from the flat car into a ditch, from which he sustained serious injuries. The switch was never locked, and was held in position by a weight, which, when moved from left to right, changes the position of the switch. It could not be changed by the passing of a train, nor unless some one moved the weight. The plaintiff was injured on Monday, and the switch was left in its proper position on the previous Saturday evening, and no train was running on Sunday. The switch was reasonably suited to the purpose intended, and was the one generally used by sawmill men in the operation of similar lines of railroad. The evidence was conflicting as to the rate of speed at which the train was running, some of the witnesses placing the same as low as six miles an hour and others as high as twelve, while others described the rate of speed as being very fast. The...