Cannon v. Mills, (No. 9088.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGAGE
Citation101 N.C. 59,85 S.E. 233
Docket Number(No. 9088.)
Decision Date04 May 1915
PartiesCANNON. v. LOCKHART MILLS.

85 S.E. 233
101 N.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 Lock-hart 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 water-closets 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Jacobs v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12505.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 2 Octubre 1928
    ...134, 126 S. E. 441, 38 A. L. R. 1448; Howell v. Union-Buffalo Mills, 121 S. C. 137, 113 S. E. 577; Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233; Rhodes v. So. Ry., 139 S. C. 146, 137 S. E. 434; Johnson v. A. C. L. Ry., 142 S. C. 155, 140 S. E. 443; Goodwin v. Columbia Mills, 80 S. C......
  • Hopkins v. Southern Cotton Oil Co, (No. 12410.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 23 Marzo 1928
    ...the absence of guard rails on a platform upon which the plaintiff was set to work; in the cases of Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233, and of Bize v. Chemical Co., 96 S. C. 425, 81 S. E. 10, holes in the floor were shown to have caused the injury; and in the case of Cutter......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 10 Septiembre 1926
    ...and the primary becomes the remote, cause. The law does not go back to the last efficient cause. Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233; Carter v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 119, 95 S. E. 357 [11 A. L. R. 1411]; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Kellog, 94 U. S. 469, 24 L. Ed. 256; 22 R......
  • Veronee v. Charleston Consol. Ry. & Lighting Co, (No. 12718.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 13 Agosto 1929
    ...danger. Bize v. V-C Co., 96 S. C. 425, 81 S. E. 10; Green v. Sou. Ry., 72 S. C. 398, 52 S. E. 45; Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233; Bunch v. American Cigar Co., 126 S. C. 324, 119 S. E. 828; Harwell v. Columbia Mills, 112 S. C. 177, 98 S. E. 324. See dissenting opinion o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Jacobs v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12505.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 2 Octubre 1928
    ...134, 126 S. E. 441, 38 A. L. R. 1448; Howell v. Union-Buffalo Mills, 121 S. C. 137, 113 S. E. 577; Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233; Rhodes v. So. Ry., 139 S. C. 146, 137 S. E. 434; Johnson v. A. C. L. Ry., 142 S. C. 155, 140 S. E. 443; Goodwin v. Columbia Mills, 80 S. C......
  • Hopkins v. Southern Cotton Oil Co, (No. 12410.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 23 Marzo 1928
    ...the absence of guard rails on a platform upon which the plaintiff was set to work; in the cases of Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233, and of Bize v. Chemical Co., 96 S. C. 425, 81 S. E. 10, holes in the floor were shown to have caused the injury; and in the case of Cutter......
  • Miller v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, (No. 12063.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 10 Septiembre 1926
    ...and the primary becomes the remote, cause. The law does not go back to the last efficient cause. Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233; Carter v. Railroad Co., 109 S. C. 119, 95 S. E. 357 [11 A. L. R. 1411]; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Kellog, 94 U. S. 469, 24 L. Ed. 256; 22 R......
  • Veronee v. Charleston Consol. Ry. & Lighting Co, (No. 12718.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 13 Agosto 1929
    ...danger. Bize v. V-C Co., 96 S. C. 425, 81 S. E. 10; Green v. Sou. Ry., 72 S. C. 398, 52 S. E. 45; Cannon v. Lockhart Mills, 101 S. C. 59, 85 S. E. 233; Bunch v. American Cigar Co., 126 S. C. 324, 119 S. E. 828; Harwell v. Columbia Mills, 112 S. C. 177, 98 S. E. 324. See dissenting opinion o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT