Chase v. Spartanburg Ry., Gas & Elec. Co.

Citation41 S.E. 899,64 S.C. 212
PartiesCHASE v. SPARTANBURG RY., GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Decision Date21 April 1902
CourtUnited 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.

McIver C.J., dissenting.

O. L Schumpert, McCravy & Hunt Bros., and Stanyarne Wilson, for appellant. Duncan & Sanders, for appellee.

GARY A. J.

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: "Q. Can you account at all for this accident,--for his falling? A. Only in one way: It comes unsnapped. There is a certain way, if you give it a little wrench, it will come undone. If you fasten it this way, it will be all right [the hook being fastened on each side, with the spring inward]. If you snap one on the outside and one on the inside around the pole, it will be in a crook, and this thing will turn over like that. Q. How will that unsnap it? A. I don't know how it does it, but it will come undone there. Q. That ring sometimes presses against that and throws it out? A. Very seldom. I have seen it do it once or twice with one in and one out."

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: "According to Judge Story: 'The agent is also personally liable to third persons for his own misfeasances and positive wrongs. But he is not in general (for there are exceptions) liable to third persons for his own nonfeasances or omissions of duty in course of his employment. His liability in these latter cases is solely to his principal, there being no privity between him and such third persons, but the privity exists only between him and his principal.' The rule comes from the famous saying of Lord Holt in Lane v. Sir R. Colton: 'A servant or deputy cannot be charged with neglect, but the principal only shall be charged for it; but for a misfeasance an action will lie against a servant or deputy, but not as a servant or deputy, but as a wrongdoer.' Blackstone furnishes a favorite illustration: 'If a servant *** by his negligence does any damage to a stranger, the master shall answer for his neglect. If a smith's servant lames a horse while he is shoeing him, an action lies against the master, not the servant.' But the rule as there laid down has been seriously questioned. ***" In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hopkins v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1928
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 9, 1940
    ... ... knowledge of the danger." Chase v. Spartanburg Railway, ... Gas & Electric Company, 64 S.C. 212, 215, 41 ... ...
  • Leslie v. Southern Paving Const. Co.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1933
    ... ... 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.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1930
    ... ...          In ... Chase v. Electric Co., 64 S.C. 212, 41 S.E. 899, ... 901, this court said: "But ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT