Wallace v. Kimball Co.
Wallace v. Kimball Company
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
George, J.
If it be conceded that, under the allegations of the petition, the defendant’s foreman in charge of its packing and shipping department was its vice-principal, it nevertheless appears, from further allegations of the petition, that, as to the negligence on his part which brought about the injury, he was a mere fellow servant of the plaintiff. The petition, therefore, was properly dismissed on general demurrer. While doing a servant’s work engaged solely in executing the ordinary details of labor in connection with another servant, a foreman who' in other respects stands in the place of the master is a fellow servant, and his negligence therein will not render the master liable to the other servant, except where the master is a railroad company. Civil Code (1910), § 3129; Studevant v. Blue Springs Lumber Co., 16 Ga. App. 668 (3) ( 85 S. E. 977 ), and eases there cited.
Judgment affirmed.
Wade, G. J., and Luke, J., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.