Chase v. Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Elec. Co.
Citation | 41 S.E. 899,64 S.C. 212 |
Parties | CHASE v. SPARTANBURG RY., GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
Decision Date | 21 April 1902 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Appeal from common pleas circuit court, Spartanburg county Townsend, Judge.
Action by C. C. Chase against the Spartanburg Railway, Gas & Electric Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
O. L Schumpert, McCravy & Hunt Bros., and Stanyarne Wilson, for appellant. Duncan & Sanders, for appellee.
This is an action for damages on account of injuries received by the appellant, who was struck by a servant of the defendant falling from one of its poles on the streets of Spartanburg. The complaint alleges two separate and distinct acts of negligence or causes of action: (1) It charges that the defendant furnished its servant a defective, insecure, and insufficient belt and tackle to sustain him while suspended over the street and sidewalk, by reason of which the belt broke, precipitating its servant to the ground, a distance of 20 feet, striking plaintiff and injuring him severely. (2) That the servant carelessly failed to buckle or fasten the ends of the belt while he was at work on this pole, by reason of which he fell from the pole, striking the plaintiff and injuring him severely. F. D. Marshall, foreman of the defendant, and examined as a witness in its behalf, testified as follows:
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed upon the single exception assigning error on the part of his honor the presiding judge in charging: "'If, under all the facts of this case, the jury would not render a verdict against M. Clark if he were being sued on the grounds of negligently fastening the belt, then they should not find a verdict against the defendant on this account;' thereby erroneously declaring that the liability of the employé is the correct standard by which to measure the liability of the employer; and also thereby charging upon the facts, to wit, limiting the cause of the insufficient or insecure fastening of the belt to the personal negligence of the employé, Clark, whereas the nature of the construction of the belt, for which the employé was not responsible, may have conduced to the accident in spite of the exercise of ordinary care by said employé."
Mr Jaggard, in his work on Torts (section 98), says: ***" In...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hopkins v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.
... ... liability. The following is quoted from the case of Chase ... v. Railroad, 64 S.C. 212, 41 S.E. 899: ... "But as the law imputes ... Co., ... 69 S.C. 529, 48 S.E. 538; Nichols v. Seaboard Air Line Ry ... Co., 122 S.C. 359, 115 S.E. 323." ... In the ... ...
-
Whisenhunt v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
... ... knowledge of the danger." Chase v. Spartanburg Railway, ... Gas & Electric Company, 64 S.C. 212, 215, 41 ... ...
-
Leslie v. Southern Paving Const. Co.
... ... building near the city of Spartanburg ... It was ... alleged "that on or about said date ... could not have discovered the danger." Chase v ... Electric Company, 64 S.C. 212, 41 S.E. 899, 901 ... "The general ... ...
-
James v. Gaffney Mfg. Co.
... ... In ... Chase v. Electric Co., 64 S.C. 212, 41 S.E. 899, ... 901, this court said: "But ... ...