Smith v. Harvey

• Decision Date: 12 December 1903
• Citation: 119 Ga. 215,46 S.E. 70
• Parties: HORTON & SMITH . v. HARVEY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

46 S.E. 70

119 Ga. 215

HORTON & SMITH .

v.HARVEY.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 12, 1903.

NEGLIGENCE—INJURY TO LICENSEE. 1. One who hauls his cotton to be ginned at a public ginnery is not a mere licensee, and may recover for damages when injured on the premises by the owner's negligence, even though they are not willfully and recklessly inflicted.

¶ 1. See Negligence, vol. 37, Cent. Dig. § 42.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Floyd County; John H. Reece, Judge.

Action by W. E. A. Harvey against Horton & Smith. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

The plaintiff's petition alleged that defendants were the owners of a public gin, to which he carried a load of seed cotton; that, after it had been ginned and packed, he drove his wagon to the platform erected by defendants, to receive the bale, which weighed about 500 pounds; that defendants, having no proper machinery for lifting the cotton, undertook to load it upon the wagon by hand, shoving it off the ginnery platform to the wagon with great force and violence, so that, by reason of this violence and the sudden motion given to the bale, it was thrown against plaintiff, knocking him off the wagon and breaking his leg. The defendants filed a demurrer, which being overruled, they excepted.

Geo. A. H. Harris & Son, for plaintiffs in error.

Fouche & Fouche and M. B. Eubanks, for defendant in error.

LAMAR, J. The plaintiff was not a mere licensee, but, having been invited to bring his cotton to be ginned at defendants' public ginnery, could recover damages for injuries occasioned by defendants' negligence while he was on the premises, even though the act was not reckless, willful, or grossly negligent. Atlanta Cotton Seed Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145, 4 S. E. 759, 12 Am. St. Rep. 244. While the petition was meager in its statement of facts, the charge that the cotton was shoved from the ginnery platform onto the wagon with great force and violence, thereby throwing it against the plaintiff and breaking his leg, set out a cause of action as against a general demurrer. The fact that there was no crane and no rope and tackle for lifting the cotton, and that the plaintiff knew thereof, and by the exercise of ordi-nary care could have avoided the injury, were matters for defense. Archer v. Blalock, 97 Ga. 719, 25 S. E. 391.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.