Branch v. Port Royal & W. C. Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 09 March 1892
• Citation: 14 S.E. 808,35 S.C. 405
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Branch v. Port Royal & W. C. Ry. Co.

14 S.E. 808

35 S.C. 405

Branch

v.Port Royal & W. C. Ry. Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 9, 1892.

Injury to Servant—Defective Machinery— Knowledge of Master—Pleading.

A complaint for injury to a servant while in the performance of his duty, through delect in the machinery provided by the master, need not state that such defect was known or ought to have been known by the master, want of knowledge being a matter of defense.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Abbeville county; Wallace, Judge.

Action by William A. Branch, administrator of William L. Branch, deceased, against the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company for the negligent killing of deceased. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Joseph Ganahl and Parker & McGowan, for appellant.

E. B. Gary and W. C. Beast, for respondent.

McIver, C. J. The only question raised by this appeal is whether the circuit judge erred in overruling a demurrer to the complaint, based upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. So much of the complaint as is pertinent to this inquiry reads as follows: "That the said William L. Branch, while in the employment, as a train hand, of said defendant, on its train of cars on said defendant's railroad tra^k, in the county and state aforesaid, and while in the discharge of his duty as such train hand, in attempting, when said train of cars was running very fast, to adjust and arrange certain loose timbers on top of one of said care, was killed through the carelessness, negligence, and wrongful acts of the defendant, in that defendant's machinery connected with said train of cars, and which caused the death of William L. Branch, was defective, in that said defendant failed negligently to keep in repair the machinery aforesaid, and in that said defendant negligently failed to do and perform such other and further things in and about the premises as the law required should have been done." The allegation, therefore, briefly stated, is that plaintiff's intestate, while in the performance of his duty as a servant of defendant, was killed by reason of a defect in the machinery provided by defendant; and the point of inquiry is whether such an allegation Is sufficient, or whether it is not necessary that the plaintiff should further allege that the defect in the machinery was known to the defendant. The rule is well settled that it is the duty of the master not only to furnish his servant, in the first instance, with safe and suitable ma chinery or other appliances to enable him to perform the work for which he is employed, but also to keep the same in repair; and that the neglect of the master to perform such duty renders him liable to the servant for any injury he may sustain by reason of such neglect. Gunter v. Manufacturing Co., 18 S. C. 262; Donahue v. Railroad Co., 32 S. C. 301, 11 S. E. Rep. 95; Carter v. Oil Co., (S. C.) 13 S. E. Rep. 419. And, as is said in the case last cited, the omission to perform such duty on the part of the master "affords at least prima facie evidence of negligence on his part." In the case of Lasure v. Manufacturing Co., 18 S. C....