Barkley v. South Atl. Waste Co

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BROWN
• Citation: Barkley v. South Atl. Waste Co, 147 N.C. 585, 61 S.E. 565 (N.C. 1908)
• Decision Date: 06 May 1908
• Parties: BARKLEY. v. SOUTH ATLANTIC WASTE CO.

147 N.C. 585

61 S.E. 565

BARKLEY.

v.SOUTH ATLANTIC WASTE CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 6, 1908.

1. Master and Servant—Master's Liability for Injuries—Place of Work—Scaffolds —Care in Construction.

Where defendant directed its employés to work on a scaffold which was already built, it was bound to exercise due care in selecting materials reasonably suitable and safe for the construction of the scaffold.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 164, 193, 207.]

2. Same—Delegation of Duty.

If defendant delegated the construction of a scaffold upon which its employés worked to another, it was responsible for the manner in which the scaffold was constructed.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, § 175.]

3. Same—Actions—Question for Jury—Master's Negligence.

In an action for injuries from the falling of a scaffold on which plaintiff was directed to work, where there was evidence that the scaffold was constructed of old material and the wood was knotty and had been scorched in a fire, while these facts, if true, did not constitute negligence per se, the question of negligence was for the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, § 1024.]

4. Same — Evidence — Contributory Negligence.

In an action for injuries by the falling of a scaffold on which plaintiff was directed to work after it had been built by others, evidence examined, and held not to show that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in working thereon.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 988-996.]

5. Same—Risks Assumed—Reliance on Master's Care.

Where plaintiff was directed to work on a scaffold which had been built by others, and which his foreman assured him was safe, plaintiff being unacquainted with either the persons constructing it or the quality of the material therein, he was entitled to rely on the assurance of the foreman, and that he made only a casual inspection of it did not render him negligent.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 675-677.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Ferguson, Judge.

Action by D. A. Barkley against the South Atlantic Waste Company to recover for personal injuries. From the judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Judgment set aside, and new trial ordered.

J. F. Newell, J. D. McCall, and Brevard Nixon, for appellant.

Morrison & Whitlock, for appellee.

BROWN, J. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that he was a carpenter in defendant's service, and at the time of the injury had been working down in a warehouse. On June 8th Mr. Michael, foreman of the carpenters, came for plaintiff and ordered him to go into the factory, which had been damaged by fire and was being repaired, and to "ceil the overhead and case up the joists and truss beams." Plaintiff states: "Mr. Michael came after me at the wareroom, told me that the scaffold that I would find was already constructed up there, and when I got there I found the scaffold built up on the side of some boxes or bins that were in the building prior to the fire." Plaintiff states that he did not assist in building the scaffold, and only casually examined it when he went on it; that he asked Michael if the scaffold was alright, and he said "it was and to go ahead." Plaintiff further says: "The scaffold ran clear across the building. I worked on the other end—maybe a day or two days—and then the last day (the evening I got hurt) Mr. Michael told me to put the molding around this joist or truss and get a man to help me, and I got Mr. Austin. I cut the molding, and would nail up one end. Mr. Austin would nail the molding on while I would cut another piece to go around, and this was possibly between 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening, and the last piece I cut I cut it and shoved it back to Mr. Austin. He was on this scaffold, a piece from me—I don't know what distance—and I asked him how did it fit. He said 'All right'; and I said 'Nail it' 1 started to nail my end, holding it up so, and the thing broke and went from under me. I had been on this particular scaffold when it fell just about a minute—not over a minute on that particular place—until Istepped on there and fell." Plaintiff further says: "The end I had been working on was pretty well floored all along. This end that I came around there on, and that broke down and fell, I don't know how much floor was on it."

In the view we take of this case it is unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff was injured by the negligence of a fellow servant. Assuming the standard of duty which defendant owed plaintiff to be as stated in the elaborate brief of the learned counsel for defendant—that "the only...