Wilson v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1907 |
| Citation | 58 S.E. 1019,78 S.C. 381 |
| Parties | WILSON v. VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; R. O Purdy, Judge.
Action by Lizzie Wilson, as administratrix of the estate of William Wilson, deceased, against the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Simeon Hyde, Mordecal & Gadsden, and Rutledge & Hagood, for appellant.
Jas. L Jervey and Jervey & Cohen, for respondent.
The plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of William Wilson recovered judgment against the defendant for $1,500, under these allegations charging the intestate's death to have been caused by defendant's negligence: "That on or about the 14th day of March, 1906, the plaintiff's intestate was in the employ of the defendant company and was actively engaged in his duties, which consisted in shoveling up scattered phosphate rock from the space in front of the door of a certain building into which phosphate rock was being discharged from cars, through which space ran a railroad track; that, while so engaged and intent upon his work, a railroad car, loaded with phosphate rock, was carelessly and negligently pushed along said railway track by the agents and employés of the said defendant company; that no signal was made nor warning given of the movement of said car; that by reason of said carelessness and negligence of the defendant, as aforesaid, the said car struck the said William Wilson, and crushed him between the said moving car and said building, and he was thereby injured, so that he then and there died." A motion for nonsuit was made on these grounds: (1) That it appeared from the testimony that the injury to the plaintiff's intestate was caused by the negligence of fellow servants, who were not doing any part of the duty of the master; (2) that the injury to the plaintiff's intestate was due to his own contributory negligence as a proximate cause thereof; (3) that there was no evidence of the negligence of the defendant which could support the verdict in the case. The main question in the appeal was whether the circuit judge was right in refusing the motion for nonsuit.
The evidence verifies the complaint as to the mechanical means by which Wilson met his death. While it is far from clear that the failure to give a signal of the approach of the car was the proximate cause of the accident on this point there was evidence to go to the jury. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Broad River Power Co.
... ... and worked independently of each other. The case of ... Wilson v. V. C. Chemical Co., 78 S.C. 381, 58 S.E ... 1019, is conclusive of the proposition that Hill ... ...
-
Leopard v. Beaver Duck Mills
...St. Rep. 641. Illustrations of the application of the principle demonstrate the correctness of the circuit judge's ruling. In Wilson v. Chemical Co., 78 S.C. 381, 58 S.C. the deceased was one of a gang of laborers under a foreman named Sanders, engaged in shoveling rock loaded from the spac......
-
Wesley v. Holly Hill Lumber Co.
... ... 237, 51 S.E. 680; Biggers v. Catawba ... Power Co., 72 S.C. 264, 51 S.E. 882; Wilson v ... Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 78 S.C. 381, 58 S.E ... 1019; Goodman v. Western Union ... ...
- Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Minor