Sloan v. Georgia Pac. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1890 |
| Parties | SLOAN v. GEORGIA PAC. RY. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A brakeman upon a railway who is under orders always to couple cars with a stick, and who has been in the employment of the company for a considerable time, and has always heard that such was the rule of the company, (as it in fact was,) cannot recover of the company for an injury to his hand sustained while endeavoring to make a coupling directly with his hand without the use of a stick. It makes no difference that other employes frequently or customarily disregarded the rule unless the company, with knowledge of their practice acquiesced in it in a way to sanction it, or practically to abrogate the rule. Nothing less would relieve the plaintiff from abiding by his uniform orders.
Error from city court of Atlanta; VAN EPPES, Judge.
Hoke & Burton Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Jackson & Jackson, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff's hand was injured while he was between the cars endeavoring to make a coupling by the direct use of his hand. He testified at the trial that he had been in the employment of the company for a considerable length of time and said: The printed rules of the company contained this clause: It thus appears that the plaintiff's information as to the rule was correct. He had provided himself with a stick of his own selection, which he thought was more suitable for the purpose than those furnished by the company, and this stick he had endeavored to use in making this particular coupling; but, failing to succeed, he went between the cars, and tried to accomplish the work with his hand. Had he abided by the rule of which he had always heard, and by the orders which had been given to him, it is manifest that the injury of which he complains would not have been received. Whatever fault there may have been in other employes, that fault would have been harmless to him if he had not violated his instructions. The whole pressure of the case, therefore, is upon the question whether he ought to be excused for committing such violation. The court charged the jury that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co.
... ... employee from the requirement of abiding by them. Sloan ... v. Georgia, 86 Ga. 15, 12 S.E. 179. Such violations may, ... however, be so habitual as to ... ...
-
Finnegan v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
... ... 32; Railroad v. Hammond, 58 ... Ark. 324; Fordyce v. Briney, 58 Ark. 206; Sloan ... v. Railroad, 86 Ga. 15; Railroad v. Kitchens, ... 83 Ga. 83; Railroad v. Mapp, 80 Ga ... diligence to have then enforced: Pool v. Southern Pac ... Co., 20 Utah 210, 58 P. 326) must have ... become aware of such habitual disregard, and ... ...
-
Fitzgerald v. Int'l Flax Twine Co.
...without the master's acquiescence does not relieve the particular employé from the requirement of abiding by them. Sloan v. Ga. Pac. R., 86 Ga. 15, 12 S. E. 179. Such violations may, however, be so habitual as to amount to their renunciation or waiver. St. Louis, etc., Co. v. Caraway, 77 Ar......
-
Fitzgerald v. International Flax Twine Co.
...without the master's acquiescence does not relieve the particular employee from the requirement of abiding by them. Sloan v. Georgia, 86 Ga. 15, 12 S. E. 179. Such violations may, however, be so habitual as to amount to their renunciation or waiver. St. Louis v. Caraway, 77 Ark. 405, 91 S. ......