Chase v. Spartanburg Ry
| Decision Date | 21 April 1902 |
| Citation | 41 S.E. 899,64 S.C 212 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHASE v. SPARTANBURG RY., GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
NEGLIGENCE—PLEADING—INSTRUCTIONS. In an action for personal injuries the complaint charged that the injury was caused— First, by a defective belt furnished by the master; and, second, through carelessness of a servant in fastening the belt. Held error to charge that the jury could not find against the master unless they also found against the servant for negligently fastening the belt, as the master might have been negligent in furnishing a defective appliance or notifying the servant of danger. McIver, C. J., dissenting.
Appeal from common pleas circuit court, Spartanburg county; Townsend, Judge.
Action by C. C. Chase against the Spartanburg Railway, Gas & Electric Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
O. L. Schumpert, McCravy & Hunt Bros., and Stanyarne Wilson, for appellant.
Duncan & Sanders, for appellee.
This is an action for damages on account of injuries received by the appellant, who was struck by a servant of the defendant falling from one of its poles on the streets of Spartanburg. The complaint alleges two separate and distinct acts of negligence or causes of action: (1) It charges that the defendant furnished its servant a defective, insecure, and insufficient belt and tackle to sustain him while suspended overthe street and sidewalk, by reason of which the belt broke, precipitating its servant to the ground, a distance of 20 feet, striking plaintiff and injuring him severely. (2) That the servant carelessly failed to buckle or fasten the ends of the belt while he was at work on this pole, by reason of which he fell from the pole, striking the plaintiff and injuring him severely. P. D. Marshall, foreman of the defendant, and examined as a witness in its behalf, testified as follows:
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed upon the single exception assigning error on the part of his honor the presiding judge in charging: " If, under all the facts of this case, the jury would not render a verdict against M. Clark if he were being sued on the grounds of negligently fastening the belt, then they should not find a verdict against the defendant on this account;' thereby erroneously declaring that the liability of the employe is the correct standard by which to measure the liability of the employer; and also thereby charging upon the facts, to wit, limiting the cause of the insufficient or insecure fastening of the belt to the personal negligence of the employe, Clark, whereas the nature of the construction of the belt, for which the employe was not responsible, may have conduced to the accident in spite of the exercise of ordinary care by said employe."
Mr. Jaggard, In his work on Torts (section 98), says: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkins v. Southern Cotton Oil Co
...and, even if the defect was latent, this would not relieve it from liability. The following is quoted from the case of Chase v. Railroad, 64 S. C. 212, 41 S. E. 899: "But as the law imputes to the master the knowledge of the danger, even though latent, in the use of the instrumentalities wi......
-
Whisenhunt v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...defense, to show that he could not, by the use of due diligence, have had knowledge of the danger." Chase v. Spartanburg Railway, Gas & Electric Company, 64 S. C.212, 215, 41 S.E. 899, 900. It was for the jury to say whether the injury resulted from a defective appliance negligently furnish......
-
James v. Gaffney Mfg. Co
...extraordinary burden of discovering a defect that "can't be seen"—an obvious impossibility. In Chase v. Electric Co., 64 S. O. 212, 41 S. E. 899, 901, this court said: "But as the law imputes to the master the knowledge of the danger, even though latent, in the use of the instrumentalitie......
-
Bryant v. Gaffney Mfg. Co
...from the casing. The master answered, through its superintendent, directing him to proceed. Chase v. Electric Company, 64 S. E. 215, 41 S. E. 899; Biggers v. Catawba Power Co., 72 S. O. 269, 51 S. E. 882; Brabham v. Tel. & Tel. Co., supra. This exception should be overruled. "(3) Because hi......