Legal Opinion

Richmond Hosiery Mills v. Hayes

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided December 12, 1916PublishedCited by 10 opinions

' Action for damages. Before Judge 'Wright. Walker superior court. December 30, 1915.

1Opinion of the CourtEvans, P. J.

In his petition the plaintiff alleged the following: He was a boy of 15 years, had been reared on a farm, was without experience as to machinery, and was employed at the defendant’s factory. His duties were to stir hosiery with a stick in dye-*241kettles, about which employment there was no danger. He was engaged in this work for about four days, when he was removed by defendant’s superintendent and vice-principal from this work to a machine known as a hydro extractor or whizzer, operated for drying hosiery in the course of its manufacture. This machine was composed of a metal receptacle upon…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hayes v. Richmond Hosiery MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1915

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Dill v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1966
  2. Hall v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
  3. Campbell v. PowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
  4. Shepherd v. ShepherdSupreme Court of Georgia · 1969
  5. Branch v. BranchSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942

5 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