Taylor v. Bolton, 44715
| Decision Date | 06 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 44715,No. 3,44715,3 |
| Citation | 173 S.E.2d 96,121 Ga.App. 141 |
| Parties | Mark D. TAYLOR et al. v. James G. BOLTON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Sharpe, Sharpe, Hartley & Newton, W. Ward Newton, T. Malone Sharpe, Lyons, for appellants.
Percy J. Blount, Waynesboro, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The claim in the present case arises out of a master-servant relationship, and the of the action is the alleged negligence of the defendants in failing to provide the plaintiff, a farm laborer, with safe working conditions and in failing to warn him of the dangers involved. The plaintiff was unloading corn and his legs were injured in the machinery being used for this purpose. The defendants appeal from the denial of a summary judgment. Held:
The sole issue for consideration is whether the defendants have pierced the pleadings so as to eliminate negligence on their part as the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. To do this the defendants rely solely on the plaintiff's testimony, from which it does appear that he was an experienced farm laborer, and perhaps well acquainted generally with the dangers involved in working around farm machinery, but it also appears that the machinery may have been defective in a manner which may have caused him to fail to appreciate fully the dangers involved, thus making a jury question as to whether, under such conditions, the employer should have issued a warning or taken other safety measures. For the responsibilities of the master and servant in this respect, see Code §§ 66-301, 66-303.
Central of Georgia Railway Company v. Hawes, 120 Ga.App. 4, 169 S.E.2d 356. Also, see Shutley v. Hite, 118 Ga.App. 664, 165 S.E.2d 169.
It is also well settled that ordinarily issues of negligence and proximate cause,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vega by Muniz v. Piedilato
...and ... a court should not take the place of a jury in solving them except in plain and indisputable cases." Taylor v. Bolton, 121 Ga.App. 141, 173 S.E.2d 96, 98 (1970). When there is no disputed issue of material fact, however, the factfinding role of the jury becomes superfluous. See Bril......
-
American Plan Corp. v. Beckham
...defendant to judgment as a matter of law. Mion Construction Company, Inc. v. Rutledge, 123 Ga.App. 777, 182 S.E.2d 500; Taylor v. Bolton, 121 Ga.App. 141, 173 S.E.2d 96. 2. No basis appears for treating the present action as one for malicious abuse of process, as distinguished from maliciou......
-
Supreme Oil Co., Inc. v. Brock, 48341
...802, 149 S.E.2d 749.' Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Hawes, 120 Ga.App. 4, 169 S.E.2d 356 which was quoted with approval in Taylor v. Bolton, 121 Ga.App. 141, 173 S.E.2d 96. Judgment HALL, P.J., and EVANS, J., concur. ...
-
Gingold v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.
...evidence there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the insurer is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Taylor v. Bolton, 121 Ga.App. 141, 142, 173 S.E.2d 96; Shutley v. Hite, 118 Ga.App. 664, 165 S.E.2d 169; Watkins v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 801, 802, 149 S.E......