Lester v. Carolina, C. & O. Ry. of South Carolina

Decision Date16 January 1913
Citation76 S.E. 976,93 S.C. 395
PartiesLESTER v. CAROLINA, C. & O. RY. OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; Geo W. Gage, Judge.

Action by Sylvester L. Lester against the Carolina, Clinchfield & Ohio Railway of South Carolina. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Carson & Boyd, of Spartanburg, and J. Norment Powell, of Johnson City, Tenn., for appellant. C. P. Sims and Nicholls & Nicholls, all of Spartanburg, for respondent.

WATTS J.

This was an action for damages by plaintiff against the defendant for injuries received by plaintiff, while in the employ of defendant, by reason of the alleged negligence of defendant. The negligence as alleged in the complaint was: (1) The handhold or step at the top of the box car was loose and insecurely fastened. (2) The defendant did not warn the plaintiff of the defective and insecure condition of the step or handhold. (3) The defendant carelessly and negligently failed to inspect the box car. (4) The defendant failed to stop the car before allowing the plaintiff to climb up on it. After issue joined, the case came on for trial before his honor, Judge Gage, and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. At close of plaintiff's testimony, the defendant moved for a nonsuit, which was refused. When all of the testimony was in, defendant moved for a direction of a verdict, which was refused. Defendant appeals, and asks reversal on the ground that there is no evidence to show that there was any negligence on the part of defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff, and questions the correctness of the circuit judge's ruling in refusing to grant a nonsuit or direct a verdict in favor of defendant, as moved for.

The law is so well settled in this state that it is unnecessary to quote authority that it is the duty of the master to furnish the servant with a reasonable, suitable, and safe place to work, and keep the same in reasonably safe and suitable repair, and furnish the servant with reasonably safe and suitable machinery and appliances to do the work with, and keep the same in reasonably safe and suitable repair, and this duty of the master is nonassignable.

The only testimony in the case here is that of the plaintiff. The defendant in no way attempts to relieve itself by explaining the condition of the grab ladder or that the appliances furnished by it were reasonably...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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