Bradley v. Carolina Coal & Ice Co

• Decision Date: 25 May 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 550.)
• Citation: Bradley v. Carolina Coal & Ice Co, 85 S.E. 388, 169 N.C. 255 (N.C. 1915)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BRADLEY. v. CAROLINA COAL & ICE CO.

85 S.E. 388

169 N.C. 255

BRADLEY.

v.CAROLINA COAL & ICE CO.

(No. 550.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 25, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Webb, Judge.

Action by L. W. Bradley against the Carolina Coal & Ice Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Zeb F. Curtis, of Asheville, for appellant.

Alfred S. Barnard, of Asheville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The evidence is to the effect that the plaintiff, at the time of his injuries, was a driver on one of the coal wagons of the defendant, and was engaged in delivering coal about four miles from the plant of defendant. Defendant furnished plaintiff with a two-horse wagon and team of mules, but failed to provide him with a seat upon which to sit while in the discharge of his duties. Plaintiff selected a piece of timber from the yard of defendant with which to make a seat for the wagon furnished by defendant, and while driving along a rough street in the city of Asheville, with a load of coal to be delivered at Grove Park Inn, a small piece of wire, which was used for holding the "sideboards" of said wagon together, and upon which "sideboards" plaintiff had placed the piece of timber for a seat, suddenly broke, allowing his seat to fall by the spreading of "sideboards, " and thereby throwing plaintiff against the ground, whereby he sustained injuries.

It is well settled by numerous decisions of this court that where a servant seeks to recover damages because of defects in the instrumentalities furnished him by the master, he must allege and prove, first, that there was a defective condition; second, that the defective condition was the proximate cause of his injury; and, third, that the defendant knew of the defective condition or was guilty of negligence in not discovering and repairing the same. Hudson v. Railroad, 104 N. C. 491, 10 S. E. 669; Shaw v. Manufacturing Co., 143 N. C. 131, 55 S. E. 433.

The evidence fails to prove these necessary facts. There was no evidence that the defendant knew or should have anticipated this accident, or could have foreseen that the accident might occur, and before there would be a recovery on the part of the plaintiff, it was necessary for him to show a breach of duty on the part of the defendant, some act or omission producing the breach culpable in itself, and such as a reasonably careful man would foresee might be productive of injury, for one is not liable for an injury which he could not foresee. Carter v. Lumber Co., 129...