Southern Agricultural Works v. Franklin
| Decision Date | 12 July 1900 |
| Citation | 111 Ga. 319,36 S.E. 693 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN AGRICULTURAL WORKS. v. FRANKLIN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
INJURY TO MINOR EMPLOYS—NEGLIGENCE OF SUPERINTENDENT—PLEADING.
1. Following the decision of this court in Cotton-Factory Co. v. Speer, 69 Ga. 137, which was approved and followed by a full bench in Augusta Factory v. Barnes, 72 Ga. 217, the general rule of law exempting a master from liability to one servant for the negligence of a co-employé does not apply to the case of a child who was injured or killed in consequence of the negligence of a superintendent under whose orders the child was at work, and which orders the child was bound to obey, —the more especially when the child was by its father hired to the common master of both the child and the superintendent to do a particular kind of work, which was not dangerous, and was by the superintendent, without the father's knowledge or consent, required to do other work, which was dangerous, and was in consequence injured or killed. (a) The foregoing disposes of the general demurrer filed in the present case.
2. The petition as amended set forth the plaintiff's cause of action with sufficient distinctness in all material particulars, and was good against the special grounds of the demurrer.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action by R. B. Franklin against the Southern Agricultural Works. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Slaton & Phillips and D. W. Rountree, for plaintiff in error.
Geo. L. Bell and C. P. Goree, for defendant in error.
LEWIS, J. R. V. Franklin brought suit in the city court of Atlanta against the Southern Agricultural Works, and, for cause of action, substantially alleged that: The defendant was a corporation having its principal office in the city of Atlanta. The defendant at the time of committing the grievances mentioned, to wit, on January 17, 1899, and for several months prior thereto, was the owner and operator of a certain manufactory, situate on Marietta street, in said city, used in manufacturing agricultural implements, and was then engaged in that business. It had a steam engine, producing steam power of great force and pressure, which was used to move and work machinery, gearing, and belting, which said machinery, gearing, and belting were used in manufacturing said agricultural implements. There were certain other machinery, gearing, and belting, to wit, a large shaft or axle, moving, and was in motion and was kept in motion by means of the steam engine. There were also other machinery, gearing, belting, shafts, cogwheels, and shearers, used in the manufacturing of said implements, and while in operation extremely dangerous. On January 2, 1899, defendant em ployed petitioner's son, George W. Franklin, as an employé and servant to do and perform certain work and labor for it in its manufactory, for hire, wages, and reward, to wit, to put plows on the bench to the grinders at the emery wheels in said manufactory. George W. Franklin was petitioner's son, and at the time of his employment was a minor of tender years, being at the time between 13 and 14 years of age, and, although small in size for his age, he was sound and healthy, and of a strong constitution, and was sober, industrious, etc. Petitioner hired his son to defendant to do the specific work mentioned, and the character thereof was not dangerous, and was not connected with any of the machinery in the manufactory; and the duties of his work did not require him to have anything to do with the machinery, or to be acquainted with or have any knowledge of it. Petitioner was well acquainted with the machinery in defendant's manufactory, and knew of its dangerous character. His son was wholly inexperienced and unacquainted with it and its operation, and, knowing this, petitioner only consented to hire him to do the specific work mentioned, and would not, under any consideration, and did not, consent for his son to work at, with, or about any of said machinery. Defendant changed the work in which he was employéd up to January 17, 1899, and on that day, while he was engaged in the performance of the duties of his employment, the defendant withdrew him from the specific duties for which he was employéd, and assigned him to other duties, not connected with or embraced within his special employment. He was ordered by Robert Quinn, the foreman of the shearers and punchers in said manufactory, to leave his said work and go to another room, where a shearer was located, which was a dangerous machine, connected by shaft, cogwheels, pulleys, and belting with the main axle or shaft and steam engine, and was wrongfully, carelessly, and negligently put to work by said foreman on said shearer and near said cogwheels, which were revolving with great force and velocity, being propelled by a powerful steam engine, without instructing him as to the danger of said machinery or how to work at the same, and while engaged at the said shearer, under the express order of said foreman, and having been at work at the same only a short time, the said George W. Franklin was, by the wrongful conduct and negligence of defendant, caught in said machinery between the cogwheels, whereby he was mortally wounded, from the effect of which he died. Robert Quinn, foreman, was authorized to hire and discharge employés for the defendant, and did on January 2, 1899, hire said George W. Franklin from petitioner to work for defendant at the specified work aforesaid. Said Franklin was working under Quinn, foreman, and it was his duty to obey the orders of Quinn, who was placed in authority over him by defendant. Petitioner was entitled to the earnings of his son fromthe date of his death to his majority, a period of 7 years and 21 days. At the time of his death his son was earning 35 cents a day, and his capacity to earn still more would have increased with his age; by reason of all of which he was damaged in a sum stated. To meet a special demurrer of defendant, plaintiff amended his petition by alleging that defendant was also guilty of negligence in putting his son, who was a minor of tender years and unacquainted with machinery and its operation, to work at, upon, and about said machinery. It then specified how he was hurt, while helping one Guerin change the blades on the shearer, in obedience to the order of Quinn, defendant's foreman;...
To continue reading
Request your trial