Case Name: Burns v. The Ocean Steamship Company
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1890-03-21
Citations: 84 Ga. 709
Docket Number: 
Parties: Burns v. The Ocean Steamship Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 709–711

Head Matter:
Burns v. The Ocean Steamship Company.
In an action for damages, the plaintiff’s evidence tending to sustain his allegations, to the effect that the defendant had a ladder leading into the hold of its ship, which was defective because of the absence of one of its rounds, and on which a person engaged at the same work with plaintiff attempted to descend and by reason of the defect fell, and to save himself jumped against a bale of cotton, which fell through the hatchway leading to the lower hold where plaintiff was at work, injuring him without any fault on his . own part, — the case was for consideration by the jury, and the award of a nonsuit was erroneous.
March 21, 1890.
Damages. Negligence. Nonsuit. Evidence. Before Judge Ealligant. Chatham superior court. June term, 1889.
Reported in the decision.
Garrard & Meldrim, ¥m. Pease and A. H. MacDonell, for plaintiff.
Lawton & Cunningham, for -defendant.

Opinion:
Blandford, Justice.
The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant, claiming damages for an injury which he received by reason of the negligence of the defendant, in this that the defendant had a defective ladder leading into the hold of its ship, because of a round being out of the same; that a person, who was engaged in the same work with the plaintiff, in attempting to descend this ladder, by reason of the defect therein, fell, or to save himself, jumped upon or against a bale of cotton, which fell through the hatchway leading to the lower hold of the vessel, where the plaintiff was at work, and, without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, struck him and broke his leg, causing him great pain and suffering, and he was thereby damaged and injured as complained of.
The testimony introduced by the plaintiff tended to sustain these allegations in his declaration. It was shown that the ladder mentioned in plaintiff's declaration was defective, in that there was a round of the same missing; and that the plaintiff was injured in the way and manner set out in his declaration. The court sustained a motion to nonsuit plaintiff's case, and this is excepted to.
"We think tlie plaintiff made out such a case by his testimony as entitled him to have the same considered by a jury, and that the court committed error in awarding a nonsuit in this ease. So the judgment is
Reversed.