Woodson v. Wm. Johnston & Co

• Decision Date: 08 December 1899
• Citation: Woodson v. Wm. Johnston & Co, 34 S.E. 587, 109 Ga. 454 (Ga. 1899)
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: WOODSON. v. WM. JOHNSTON & CO., Limited.

34 S.E. 587

109 Ga. 454

WOODSON.

v.WM. JOHNSTON & CO., Limited.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 8, 1899.

Injury TO EMPLOYS;—NEGLIGENCE OF suPERINTENDENT—PLEADING.

1. An employer is liable in damages for physical injuries to an employé, resulting from the negligence of one who was the general superintendent of the business of the former, and who, on the occasion when the injuries were sustained, was acting as the employer's alter ego, and not in the capacity of a fellow servant of the person injured.

2. Though the petition in an action for such injuries alleged that they were received while the plaintiff was working in the hold of a ship, it was not essential to set forth its name, or the names of his co-laborers, or to aver that the defendant was responsible for the negligence of the latter; the time, place, and manner of the occurrencegiving rise to the cause of action being by means of other allegations sufficiently stated.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Brunswick; S. C. Atkinson, Judge.

Action by O. A. Woodson against Wm. Johnston & Co., Limited. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Max Isaac, for plaintiff in error.

W. G. Brantley, for defendants in error.

LUMPKIN, P. J. An action for damages was brought in the city court of Brunswick by Woodson against Wm. Johnston & Co. The petition made, in substance, the following case: The defendants were engaged in running a line of steamships from Brunswick to European ports, in the course of which they employed the plaintiff to work as a laborer in loading with cotton one of their ships at their dock in the city of Brunswick. They employed a superior officer, known as the "walking boss, " who had power to hire and discharge men, and who also exercised a general superintendence over the hands engaged in loading the defendants' ships. It was his duty, when about to change the working crew of any steamer from one position to another in the course of loading a vessel, to first notify the gang working in the hold of his intention to make such change, in order that one of the laborers in the hold known as the "header" might have an opportunity to notify the new crew of laborers employed on the deck above not to throw down or lower any cotton until directed so to do, to the end that the gang below might not be subjected to injury. On a day named in the petition, a bale of cotton was thrown into the hold of the ship, and the plaintiff was thereby crushed, and seriously injured. The hurt thus occasioned him was caused by the negligence of the "walking boss" in the "changing of the crew on deck * * * without notice or warning to the men in the hold below, * * * and in replacing said deck crew with a new crew that was composed of green men, who knew nothing of the work that they were about, " one of whom threw down the bale of cotton by which the plaintiff, who was one of the men employed in the hold, was injured. The conduct of the "walking boss" in this respect was in gross violation of his duty, and the direct cause of the injury Inflicted upon the plaintiff. The defendants demurred to the petition generally and specially. Their demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff excepted.

With respect to the general demurrer, we think it sufficient to say that...