Legal Opinion

Biederman v. Montezuma Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 15, 1923No. 13308PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

There being no allegation to the contrary, it must be assumed that the servant (the plaintiff) was of ordinary intelligence, and that he was laboring under no physical defect or disability which rendered him incapable of appreciating the situation and knowing of the dangers incident to his employment. Thomas v. Georgia Granite Co., 140 Ga. 459, 461 (79 S. E. 130). Construing the petition (as it must be construed) most strongly against the plaintiff, it appears that the defects upon the floor which' caused him to slip and fall, and thus resulted in the injuries for which he sues, were patent…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Thomas v. Georgia Granite Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913
  2. Ludd v. WilkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  3. Ogain v. Imperial Cafe Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1920
  4. Day & Co. v. GraybillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
  5. Dozier v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Misenhamer v. PharrCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
  2. Avary v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  3. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. FulfordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  4. Reid v. Southern Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  5. Mattox v. LambrightCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923

8 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