Carter v. Oliver Oil Co.

• Citation: 13 S.E. 419,34 S.C. 211
• Parties: Carter v. Oliver Oil Co.
• Decision Date: 18 July 1891
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

13 S.E. 419

34 S.C. 211

Carter v. Oliver Oil Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 18, 1891

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Richland county; W. H Wallace, Judge.

Action by Richard Carter against the Oliver Oil Company to recover for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

McIver J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries sustained while in the employment of the defendant company under the allegation that the injuries sustained resulted from the negligence of the company in not furnishing the plaintiff with safe and suitable appliances to do the work for which he was employed. The testimony tends to show that plaintiff was employed by defendant to operate a machine in their oil-mill, called a "former," whereby the cotton-seed meal was pressed into cakes; and that the work required of the plaintiff had to be done rapidly, to prevent the meal from burning; that the plaintiff, standing at the machine, was supplied by other servants of the defendant company with bags or sacks, which plaintiff, with the assistance of another, had to place in the machine; that these bags or sacks were placed in a pile on the top of the machine, and, when one was wanted, the plaintiff reached up and took one of the pile, which had to be done with rapidity that it was very necessary for the safety of the person operating the machine that these bags or sacks should be free from holes or rents, and therefore another person was employed to repair any torn sacks; that the disaster which gave rise to this action probably resulted from the use of a sack with a hole in it, whereby plaintiff's finger became entangled in it, and his hand was crushed. There was also some testimony tending to show that if the person operating the machine discovered any hole or rent in the sack when taken off the pile he would throw it over his shoulder, when it would be taken to the person charged with the duty of repairing the sacks. Upon the testimony thus briefly outlined, his honor Judge Wallace held that there was an entire absence of any testimony tending to show any negligence on the part of the defendant company, and therefore rendered a judgment of nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appeals upon the grounds set out in the record, which make the single question whether there was such an entire absence of testimony tending to show negligence on the part of the defendant as would warrant the granting of a nonsuit.

The rule is well settled that it is the duty of the master to furnish safe and suitable appliances for the performance of the work required of the servant, and also to see that the same are kept in proper repair; and hence, where either of these duties have not been performed, there is an omission of duty on the part of the master which affords at least prima facie evidence of negligence on his part; for these duties cannot be delegated to another, so as to relieve the master from liability to another for injuries sustained by reason of a failure to perform them properly. Gunter v. Manufacturing Co., 18 S.C. 262. This general statement of the rule is not to be construed as implying that the master is bound to provide appliances which shall prove to be absolutely safe under all contingencies, or even such as are of the best and most approved description, but, as said in the case cited, "only such as a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have used under similar circumstances." In other words, the rule does not require of the master the greatest care possible, but only such as prudent persons usually exercise under similar circumstances. This being the...