Legal Opinion

Moody v. Hardeman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 11, 1932No. 21497PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. The rule that the master is not liable for his failure to furnish his servants a safe place in which to work “where the very work the servants are employed, to do consists in making a dangerous place safe, or in constantly changing the character of the place for safety as the work progresses” (Holland v. Durham Coal Co., 131 Ga. 715, 63 S. E. 290; Byrd v. Thompson, 146 Ga. 300, 91 S. E. 100), will not relieve the master from liability “merely because the servant was engaged in construction work, and . . at the time of the injury the object being constructed was in an unfinished state, to…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Cochrell v. Langley Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  2. Holland v. Durham Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  3. Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  4. Rountree v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  5. Williams v. Garbutt Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Owensby v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  2. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway v. HilderbrandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
  3. Rogers v. BraggCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968

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

Powered by the Exa API