Watson v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co

• Decision Date: 26 March 1912
• Citation: 74 S.E. 121,91 S.C. 127
• Parties: WATSON. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

74 S.E. 121

(91 S.C. 127)

WATSON.

v.ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 26, 1912.

Master and Servant (§ 201*)—Injury to Servant — Master's Liability — Negligence or Fellow Servant.

An employe was entitled to recover for an injury caused by negligence of his employer in providing a defective angle cock on the air brake hose of an engine about which he worked, although the negligence of the engineer in moving the train while he was between the cars was also a proximate cause of the injury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent Dig. §§ 515-534; Dec. Dig. § 201.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Moses Watson against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Moss & Lide and Henry E. Davis, for appellant.

Adam H. Moss, for respondent.

WOODS, J. The plaintiff, having been caught between two cars and injured, while in the employment of the defendant as a brakeman, recovered judgment for $600 on a complaint alleging that his injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant in providing for his use an unsafe angle cock on the hose of an air brake. The sole question made by the appeal is whether the circuit judge should have ordered a nonsuit or directed a verdict, on the ground that there was no evidence of actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.

The plaintiff testified, in substance, that he was ordered by the conductor of the freight train to which he was attached to cut off one car on the side track at Vance Station; that when the engineer had stopped the train on signal he went between the cars to cut off the rear car according to his order; that the angle cock of the air hose was defective, and so unusually hard to work that he was unable to break it; and that the delay consequent upon his effort to break the connection prevented him from getting out before the engineer moved the train and caught him between the cars.

This testimony was equivalent to the witness saying that before the accident the angle cock had been fastened too tight for ordinary and safe use; and it is this that differentiates the case from the case of Green v. Sou. Ry., 72 S. C. 398, 52 S. E. 45, relied on by appellant's counsel. In that case, the engine had worked perfectly under the hand of the plaintiff an hour before the accident, and there was not a particle of evidence...