Bolen v. Strange
Decision Date | 28 December 1939 |
Docket Number | 14992. |
Parties | BOLEN v. STRANGE et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
L A. Hutson, of Orangeburg, for appellant.
Nelson Mullins & Grier, of Columbia, and James A. Moss, of Orangeburg, for respondents.
The appellant sought in this action to recover damages for injuries which he alleges he suffered in the business premises of defendants, while there on business. The case came on to be heard by Judge Mann at the June, 1939, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Orangeburg County. At the conclusion of the testimony for plaintiff, a motion for nonsuit was granted. From this order the appeal comes to this Court.
The complaint alleges that defendants are engaged in business as meat packers, and in connection therewith, they butcher animals for others and prepare the bodies for delivery to the owners. For this service they make charges. That plaintiff is in the employ of Electric Meat Shop of Orangeburg, S. C. which is engaged in the business of butchering animals for the retail market. That it is the duty of plaintiff to take to the establishment of Carolina Packing Company cows and hogs to be butchered for the Electric Meat Shop. That on or about October 4, 1938, he took certain cows to the said Packing Company, and went back there later to get the "carcasses." According to custom, he went into the room where the butchering is done, in order to get the bodies of the cows, which were hanging on hooks around the walls above the heads of those who came for them. To facilitate this work, defendants have provided certain tables upon which the persons who come for the meat may stand. That on the date in question, plaintiff got on one of these tables and while taking a quarter of meat off the hook, slipped and fell and suffered the described injuries to his legs. That his fall was due to the fact that there was some substance on the table which caused it to be slick, dangerous and unsafe. That defendants knew, or should have known, that a table in the damp room near the meat would have on it blood or some piece of meat, or substance of some kind that would make it dangerous for plaintiff and its customers to get thereon in taking down meat from the hooks, and had had the unsafe condition brought to their attention a number of times.
These allegations of negligence by defendants are reiterated in other allegations of the complaint. That plaintiff had no notice of these dangerous and unsafe conditions. That plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligent, careless, wilful and wanton acts of the defendants, their agents and servants, as aforesaid; and in failing to furnish the plaintiff and the public with a reasonably safe place to use, and from which to deliver to the plaintiff and the public the meats which defendants butchered for them.
For answer, defendants admit the allegations of paragraphs 2 and 3. We reproduce folios 33 to 40 of their defense:
Appellant's exceptions suggest these questions: Error in granting the motion for nonsuit; error in holding that plaintiff's injuries were due to his sole negligence; error in holding that the plaintiff's negligence, combining and concurring with the negligence of the defendants, contributed to his injury, as a proximate cause, without which his injuries would not have occurred.
If the trial Judge was correct in the last stated proposition, it is decisive of the appeal.
It is needless to review all of the testimony, nor is it necessary to present a full synopsis of it. It appears to us that Judge Mann was correct when he said that the plaintiff had admitted himself out of Court.
The vital question is this: Did the plaintiff know of the alleged dangerous and unsafe conditions of which he complains? If he knew that the floor or the table from which he fell was bloody or "slick" from the presence of some substance which might make it unsafe, and yet went upon it without taking proper care for his own safety, did his negligence in this particular combine and concur with the negligence of the defendants as a proximate cause of his fall and injury? If so, can he recover?
He, himself, testifies that he was familiar with the premises and the nature of the work done there, and with the nature of the work he had to do in taking the meat from the slaughter house. He has been employed in business of that sort from his youth up. He has been working in the Electric Meat Shop for about ten years. He said:
Folios 70, 71.
To continue reading
Request your trial