
    8984.
    Southern Cotton Oil Company v. Horton.
   Bloodwokth, J.

1. When considered in connection with the pleadings and the evidence, and in the light of the entire chax-ge of the court, no error that would warrant the granting of a new. trial was committed in any of the following excerpts,.from the charge:

(а) “You should first determine the question of .whether or not the defendant is liable in the case. In order for it to be liable in the case ydu would have to find that, it was guilty of negligence in at least one of the ways set out in the petition, and that such negligence caused or contributed to the injury of the plaintiff.” Civil Code (1910), § 4426; Elk Cotton Mills v. Grant, 140 Ga. 727 (4a) (79 S. E. 836, 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 656); Tift v. Jones, 74 Ga. 470 (6); City of Rome v. Dodd, 58 Ga. 238 (2); Hubbard v. Macon Ry. &. Light Co., 5 Ga. App. 223, 224 (62 S. E. 1018); Rollestone v. Cassirer, 3 Ga. App. 161 (3b) (59 S. E. 442). (Exception was taken to the words “or contributed.”)

(б) “In this ease it is for you to say whether any inspection was made, or could have been made, and whether or not the defendant exercised ordinary care and diligence in seeing to the keeping of its premises in a safe condition.” Civil Code (1910, § 3130; Eagle & Phenix Mills v. Moncrief, 17 Ga. App. 10 (1), 26 (86 S. E. 260); Smith v. City of Rome, 16 Ga. App. 96 (4), 105 (84 S. E. 734); Georgia Railroad v. Hunter, 12 Ga. App. 295 (7), 300, 302, 304 (77 S. E. 176); Southern Bell Telephone Co. v. Shamos, 12 Ga. App. 464 (5) (77 S. E. 312); Cochrell v. Langley Mfg. Co., 5 Ga. App. 317 (3), 321, 324 (63 S. E. 244); Hubbard v. Macon Ry. & Light Co., supra; Southern States Portland Cement Co. v. Helms, 2 Ga. App. 308 (58 S. E. 524); Betts Co. v. Hancock, 139 Ga. 198 (4), 205 (77 S. E. 77); Town of Belton v. Vinton, 73 Ga. 99.

Decided April 9, 1918.

Action for damages; from city court of Polk county—Judge John K. Davis. June 8, 1917’.

W. W. Mundby, for plaintiff in error. Irwin & Tison> contra.

(c) “A servant can rely upon the performance of the duty of furnishing a safe place in which to work. Danger arising from an unsafe place is not included within the risks assumed by the servant.” Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Gladman, 1 Ga. App. 259 (2) (58 S. E. 249); King Mfg. Co. v. Walton, 1 Ga. App. 403 (3, 4) (58 S. E. 115).

(d) “If there are latent defects in the construction of the place of work which [are], or in the exercise of ordinary care could be, known to the master, and which are unknown to the servant, it is the duty of the master to warn the servant thereof.” Civil Code (1910), § 3130; Holland v. McRae Oil & Fertilizer Co., 134 Ga. 679 (8) (68 S. E. 555); Hubbard v. Macon Ry. & Light Co., Cochrell v. Langley Mfg. Co., supra.

(e) “If he was injured on account of defendant’s fault or negligence, he can recover. If both the plaintiff and defendant were at fault, and the plaintiff could not.have avoided the consequences to himself of the defendant’s negligence by the exercise of. ordinary care, the. plaintiff may recover1, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of default attributable to him.” Hill v. Callahan, 82 Ga. 109 (8 S. E. 730); Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Skipper, 125 Ga. 370 (12) (54 S. E. 110); Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co. v. Ingram, 135 Ga. 696 (70 S. E. 234). See also Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Davis, 139 Ga. 493 (2) (77 S. E. 576); Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Brown, 138 Ga. 107 (3, 5), 111-113 (74 S. E. 839); Wrightsville & Tennille Railroad v. Gornto, 129 Ga. 204 (8) (58 S. E. 769); Americus, Preston & Lumpkin Ry. Co. v. Luckie, 87 Ga. 6, 8 (13 S. E. 105).

2. There is evidence to support the verdict, the presiding judge refused to set it aside, and so will this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.  