Cook v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 April 1918
• Docket Number: 9953.
• Citation: Cook v. Southern Ry. Co., 96 S.E. 148, 109 S.C. 377 (S.C. 1918)
• Parties: COOK v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 148

109 S.C. 377

COOK v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

No. 9953.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 12, 1918

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Mendel L Smith, Judge.

Action by May Cook, administratrix of J. Walter Cook, against the Southern Railway Company. From an order directing removal of the cause to the federal court, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The following is the complaint:

Plaintiff above named, complaining of the above-named defendant alleges:

(1) That the plaintiff is the duly appointed administratrix of the estate of J. Walter Cook, deceased. That she brings this action for the benefit of herself as widow of said J. Walter Cook, and for the benefit of Maude Cook, Lee Cook, Walter B Cook and Coley Cook, the children of said J. Walter Cook, all of which children are minors; and the said widow and said children were dependent upon said J. Walter Cook.

(2) That the defendant is now and was at the times hereinafter mentioned a corporation engaged in the business of a common carrier, both of passengers and freight, in interstate and intrastate commerce.

(3) That said defendant railway company, at the time hereinafter mentioned, had and still has railroad shops in the city of Columbia, county of Richland, state of South Carolina, which is a division point, where cars are customarily repaired, and where construction work is carried on.

(4) That on the 18th day of September, 1916, plaintiff's intestate, J. Walter Cook, while engaged in the employment of the defendant as a car repairer working on a passenger coach at its shops in Richland county, state of South Carolina fell or was thrown from a ladder upon which he was to the cement floor in the paint shop of the defendant; his head and skull were broken and crushed, and subsequent thereto he died from the injuries received in said fall.

(5) That said injuries and death of the plaintiff's intestate, as plaintiff is informed and believes, was due to the negligence of the said defendant, its officers, agents and employés, in that:

(a) Said defendant company, its said officers and employés, failed and neglected to furnish and provide a safe and suitable place, and safe and suitable ways and appliances at which and with which the intestate was required to and did work; and failed to make and keep the said place and appliances safe and suitable, and to properly safeguard the same. And said defendant, its said officers and employés, furnished to intestate unsafe and dangerous place and appliances at and with which he was required to work.

(b) The said railway company, its said officers and employés, failed to furnish and provide sufficient and suitable buildings and sheds in its shops and yards for the repair and construction work which it undertook and required of its employés and of the intestate, as required by law; and required said employés and said intestate to do the repair work on this car in its paint shop, which was not a suitable and safe place for such work.

(c) The said railroad company, its said officers, agents and employés having charge and supervision of its construction and repair work, required the intestate to do said repair work in its paint shop, which is not safe, suitable and sufficient for such work. It was crowded and congested with other work and with ways and appliances adapted for such work; and said other work, ways and appliances interfered with and rendered the place and appliances at, about and with which intestate was required to work unsafe and dangerous. The floor of such paint shop was made of cement, was sloping and unsafe and unsuitable on which to rest the ladder provided and furnished to and for said intestate, in getting to and carrying on said repair work, and in carrying material for such work.

(d) Said railway company, its said officers and employés in charge and control of said repairs and shops, furnished and provided, as a way of reaching the work required of intestate, a ladder, the feet of which were made of iron spikes; and the said ladder was not safe and stable; was dangerous and unsuitable for use in said paint shop. There was no means provided...