May & Co. v. Smith, 18 S.E. 360 (Ga. 1893). · Go Syfert
Search
May & Co. v. Smith, 18 S.E. 360 (Ga. 1893). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Girvin v. Georgia Veneer & Package Co. (ga, 1913-07-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Girvin v. Georgia Veneer & Package Co.
Ga. · 1913 · confidence medium
Hpon this ground he has been held liable for the following acts of negligence: Not insisting on the use by a minor of certain safeguards provided for the servants; requiring a minor to do work which is not within the compass of his age and experience; requiring a minor to encounter risks of an unusual kind, although such work is within the scope of his employment; augmenting the risks of a minor’s service by -giving him additional duties to perform; transferring a minor to new duties involving greater dangers than those involved in the work for which he was originally hired; setting a minor …
May & Company
v.
Smith
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 15, 1893.
18 S.E. 360
C. W. Smith and Weil & Goodwin, for plaintiffs in error., Westmoreland & Austin and J. E. Warren, contra.
Bleckley.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
Bleckley, Chief Justice.

1. There was evidence from which the jury could infer that the machine by which the plaintiff below was injured was dangerous to an inexperienced person, and that the danger was not sufficiently obvious to be apparent to such a person without proper explanation and warning. That the plaintiff was not a child but was seventeen years of age, would not deprive him of the right to be warned, if, as a question of fact, the employers, or the man representing them, ought, under all the circumstances, to have inquired of him as to his expe[*97] rience, or taken notice of the probability that he was so inexperienced as to render it proper to give him warning. That his age alone did not deprive him of the right of being warned is established by many authorities. Walsh v. Peet Valve Company, 110 Mass. 23; O’Connor v. Adams, 120 Mass. 427; Wheeler v. Manufacturing Company, 135 Mass. 294; Atkins v. Merrick Thread Company, 142 Mass. 431; Paulmier v. Erie Railroad Company, 5 Vroom, 151; Parkhurst v. Johnson, 50 Mich. 70; Strahlendorf v. Rosenthal, 30 Wis. 674; Jones v. The Florence Mining Company, 66 Wis. 268; Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Watts, 64 Tex. 568; Missouri Pacific Railway Company v. Callbreath, 66 Tex. 526; Baxter v. Roberts, 44 Cal. 187; McGowan v. LaPlata Mining Company, 9 Fed. Rep. 861. And see Wood, M. & S. §352 ; Perry v. Marsh, 25 Ala. 659 ; Coombs v. New Bedford Cordage Company, 102 Mass. 572, s. c. 3 Am. R. 506.

2. The evidence was conflicting, but taking it most favorably for the plaintiff, as the jury probably did, it was sufficient to warrant the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial. Judgment affirmed.