Case ID: ga_77/html/0082-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blandford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson vs. The Georgia Railroad.
    The plaintiff brought an action for damages against the defendant for a personal injury received from the falling of a derrick used in the digging of a well for the defendant. The testimony for the plaintiff was, in brief, as follows: He was in the employment of the defendant as an ordinary railroad hand; one Palmer employed him; Palmer and his son superintended the work on that section. The hands were engaged in digging a well for the defendant, and for that purpose used the derrick. The plaintiff had not been there on Monday, but on Tuesday morning, he went to work with the others. The younger Palmer, who had charge of the hands, ordered the plaintiff to go up on the derrick and unscrew one of the guy-poles. The plaintiff stated that he had heard some of the hands say that the guy-pole had been cracked on the day before, and asked if it was so, and if there was .any danger in going up. Palmer replied with an oath that it was none of the plaintiff's business ; that there was no danger at all, and if ho did not do as directed, he could leave there at once. The plaintiff went up carefully and unscrewed a nut from the pole, but had not taken out the pieces thatheldit, whenihe guy-pole broke some distance below, and the whole derrick fell, throwing the plaintiff about twenty feet and injuring him. The plaintiff did not know that either of the guy-poles had been cracked, but he heard some one say that one of them had been damaged, and therefore asked the “boss ” if it was so. A witness for the plaintiff stated that the younger Palmer, the “boss,” knewthat the guy-pole was cracked, and that the pole broke at the point where it was cracked:
    .Held, that it was error to grant a nonsuit. The evidence certainly had a tendency to show negligence on the part of the defendant, and the case should have been- submitted to the jury.
    April 20, 1886.
    ■Nonsuit. Evidence. Negligence. Before Judge Lawson. Morgan Superior Court. September Term, 1885.
    Reported in the decision.
    Calvin George ; E. W. Butler, for plaintiff in error,
    J. A. Billups, for defendant.
   Blandford, Justice.

The plaintiff in error brought his action’ against the defendant in error for damages received in the falling of a derrick used in digging a well for defendant.

After the testimony of plaintiff had been introduced, the court granted a nonsuit. To this plaintiff excepted, and this is the error assigned here.

The plaintiff testified that ¥m, Palmer had charge of the work in digging the well; that he was employed by Palmer; he and his father were the section bosses. On Tuesday morning, he was at the work; Palmer ordered him to go on top of the derrick and loosen one of the guy-poles; he said to Palmer that he had heard that the day before that, something had cracked or broken about the derrick, and asked if there was any danger. Palmer cursed and said he could do as he had been ordered or leave; that there was no danger. He went up carefully and succeeded in unscrewing one nut, when a guy-pole below broke and the derrick fell down, throwing him some twenty feet to the ground, whereby he was injured, etc.

We think that, under this evidence, the case should have gone to the jury; it certainly had a tendency to show negligence on the part of defendant. Without further remark, we send the case back and reverse the judgment or nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.