Case ID: ga-app_26/html/0249-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11518.
    PYNETREE PAPER COMPANY v. WOOD.
    Negligence of the plaintiff and of a fellow servant being conclusively shown by the evidence to have been the cause of the injury received by him in attempting to place on a pulley a rope used as á' belt, which the fellow servant had spliced with his assistance, and which the plaintiff knew was too short for the purpose for which it was intended, and the only negligence alleged by him being that his employer, the defendant, had failed to furnish a rope of sufficient length, the verdict for the plaintiff was unauthorized.
    Decided January 28, 1921.
    Rehearing denied March 2, 1921.
    Action for damages; from Wilkinson superior court — Judge Park. April 9, 1920.
    
      Bryan & Middlebroolcs, George E. Carswell, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Allen & Pottle, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The only negligence alleged in the petition was that the defendant failed to furnish to the plaintiff a rope of proper length for the purpose intended, it being alleged that the rope was too short and on that account would not go into the grooves as did the other ropes which he had placed therein. Upon the trial the evidence conclusively showed that the rope furnished by the'defendant to the plaintiff had been spliced by a fellow servant who was ■ assisted by the plaintiff, and that upon undertaking to put upon the pulley this particular rope, which was used as a belt, the plaintiff discovered that the rope was too short and undertook to force it on the pulley with a bar, and that in so doing he suffered his injury. We hold that the evidence in this case showed that the injury sustained by the plaintiff was due to the negligence of a fellow servant, and to his own negligence in undertaking to place the rope on the pulley. For this reason the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. See Donaldson v. Marsh Cypress Co., 9 Ga. App. 267 (70 S. E. 1121), and cases there cited.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Dulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.