Moses v. Johnson

1. Under the allegations of the petition it appears that the injured servant had at least opportunity equal to that of the master to discover the alleged defects in the machinery operated by the servant.

2. Since the master did not order the servant to continue to use the defective machinery, no promise on the part of the master to repair or replace the defective machinery would relieve the servant from the duty to exercise ordinary care for his own safety. Elliott v. Tifton Mill & Gin Co., 12 Ga. App. 498 (77 S. E. 667).

3. Plaintiff assumed the risk of attempting to remedy the defect while…