Cannon v. Lockhart Mills

• Decision Date: 04 May 1915
• Docket Number: 9088.
• Parties: CANNON v. LOCKHART MILLS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

85 S.E. 233

101 S.C. 59

CANNON v. LOCKHART MILLS.

No. 9088.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 4, 1915

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Union County; S.W. G Shipp, Judge.

Action by W. A. Cannon against the Lockhart Mills. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Carson & Boyd, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

John K Hamblin and Wallace & Barron, all of Union, for respondent.

GAGE J.

Action by a servant against master for injuries to the person. Verdict for $1,000 actual damages. Appeal by defendant.

History The defendant owns and operates a cotton mill on Broad river. The plaintiff was "a common laborer and operative" therein. In the mill building there are waterclosets for the use of operatives. The floor of one of these closets had been taken up to make some repairs. The master mechanic of the mill had, the evening before the transaction in issue fastened the door leading out of the main building into the closet, and the fastening was made with a picker stick. The next morning thereafter, the plaintiff entered the mill at 6:15 o'clock, or thereabout, to start a day's work. On the same morning, and just before the plaintiff's entry into the closet, a fellow servant, Robert Brazington by name, had pulled out the picker stick and entered the closet. Then the plaintiff entered the closet, fell into the opening, and sustained injuries to his person. Lights were turned on in the mill room and closet about 6:30 in the morning. This accident happened about that time.

There are two exceptions, and they make two issues. The issues are: (1) Was there any testimony from which negligence of the master is inferable? (2) Does the testimony conclusively show that the negligence complained of was solely that of a fellow servant to plaintiff? The second issue is predicated on the first, so that the prime and controlling issue is the existence of testimony tending to show that the master omitted a duty owing to the plaintiff. Yet, though that fact be established, the defendant is not liable for that default, unless that default was a proximate cause to work the mischief. Both issues involve a consideration of the testimony, and that only.

The testimony of all the witnesses shows this: That some time before this accident the door had a lock on it for a fastening; that the day before the accident carpenters had torn up the floor in the closet; that J. W. Brazington, master mechanic, had thrust across the door for a fastening a picker stick, and had forced the end of the stick betwixt the brick wall and an iron pipe running up the wall parallel to the side of the door; that a picker stick is some three feet long, two inches wide, and a half inch thick; that the stick was intended to temporarily secure the door from entrance; that, on the day before the accident, the plaintiff was not in the mill; that on the morning in question, but a few minutes before plaintiff's entry, Robert Brazington, a fellow servant, in order to enter the closet, pulled out the picker stick, threw it on the floor, and left it there.

It will surely be conceded on all hands that a water-closet for general use in a crowded mill will ordinarily be kept with a door free to open. It will also be conceded that if the closet be out of repair, and the floors torn up so as to make entry into it hazardous, ordinary care calls for a temporary fastening of the door; that is, something to suggest that the door ought not to be opened then. Those two issues would be submitted to a jury; but the duty in each case is manifest.

The next and controlling issue of fact is: Was the picker stick a reasonably secure fastening? That question was submitted to the jury,...