Legal Opinion · Dissent

Taylor v. Bloodworth

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 5, 1990No. A90A1146Published

1DissentBeasley, Judge

When Taylor made the first delivery, Bloodworth told Taylor to be careful and watch out for the auger, as was routine. Taylor knew the machine was inherently dangerous. He understood the term auger to refer only to the screw-like part of the machine that carried the corn up to the grain bin from the pit into which he unloaded it. There was no evidence showing he was aware that, when Bloodworth repaired the machine the day before, the bolt put in to replace one that had sheared off while in operation was extra long. Bloodworth did not warn him about the danger of the longer exposed bolt on the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Brandvain v. Ridgeview Institute, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  2. Clark v. Carla Gay Dress Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
  3. Brown v. RFC Management, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  4. Waits v. MakowskiCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
  5. Dyer v. Joe Rigatoni's of Atlanta, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API