Cooper v. Mayes, 17541
| Citation | 109 S.E.2d 12,234 S.C. 491 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 17541,17541 |
| Parties | T. W. COOPER, Appellant, v. W. R. MAYES, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
C. M. Edmunds, Sumter, for appellant.
Nash & Wilson, Weinberg & Weinberg, Sumter, for respondent.
Respondent, a farmer, also operated a cotton gin and warehouse in the town of Mayesville. In September, 1957, he employed appellant, an electrician of some 25 years' experience, to install a new lighting system around the gin and the warehouse. While cutting the old wires, appellant was seriously injured as the result of electric shock. He brought this action for damages, alleging that his injury had been caused by respondent's negligence in lulling him into a sense of security by telling him that these old wires had not been used for many years and carried no current. Respondent pleaded assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The appeal is from an order of nonsuit.
Appellant offered no witness other than himself. The following appears from his testimony:
There were several poles in the warehouse lot carrying old wires, and on them were lights for the purpose of illuminating the gin yard. On the pole nearest the warehouse (referred to as pole No. 1), there was a switch box; from there one or more of the old lines ran to pole No. 2, thence to pole No. 3, and from there one ran to a small outbuilding referred to as the 'bath house'. A master switch, controlling the current in all of the old wires, was located in the warehouse, which was 150 or 200 feet from pole No. 3. The old lines consisted of two wires for 110 volts each and a third, neutral, wire. The accident occurred on a Tuesday morning, shortly after a rain. Mr. Cooper was standing on top of an aluminum ladder, which he had leaned against pole No. 3. The pole was wet. Mr. Cooper was holding, with his left hand, a porcelain bracket at the top of the pole; with a wire-cutter in his right hand he was cutting the line that ran from the pole to the 'bath house'. The two wires intended for carrying current were cut without incident; as he was in the act of cutting the 'neutral' wire the current struck him. Unable to release himself otherwise, he jumped away from the ladder, and his weight pulled him free, so that he fell to the ground some 20 feet below.
A week or so before the accident, Mr. Mayes was having trouble with his old wires; whenever the switch was thrown on at pole No. 1, sparking and flashing resulted; fuses would blow; he needed lights because he was loading cotton at night. He sent for Mr. Cooper, the electrician, who 'by-passed' the switch, thus allowing the current to go into the old lines beyond that pole. Mr. Mayes was able to load cotton that night; but the trouble started again, following a storm, and the fuses kept blowing out. Of all this Mr. Cooper knew when he came back on the morning of the accident to finish his work, which entailed installing new poles, new wires, and new switches completely around the gin yard, with outlets for lights on five of the poles.
Mr. Cooper testified that the old wires were in bad condition, with insulation worn away; some were wrapped together; some were down; the old poles were rotten. He had cut some of the old wires; the cutting of those leading to the bath house was not necessary for the installation of the new line; but he proceeded to cut them at the request of Mr. Mayes, who had told him that he was going to take all of the old wires down.
Mr. Cooper's only explanation for his failure to throw off the main switch, or examine the fuses, or test for current, or to take any precaution whatever against possible electric shock, was that he assumed there would be no danger because, about a week before, at the time he had 'cleared' the line, Mr. Mayes had told him that the bath house had not been used for some time and that the line to it had had no current for several years. He testified that he was familiar with the line; on the occasion of his work there about a week before the accident, he noticed the condition of the wires leading to the bath house and had told his colored helper to 'clear them out' with a stick, which proved impossible because of tree branches through which the line ran. There was no evidence that current was in them then. When the accident occurred there was no current in the two wires that were designed for current, and that he had just cut; he received electric shock when he was cutting the 'neutral' wire. He testified that he was unable to explain how the current got into that wire.
One of the rules of the law of master and servant is that by entering the service of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation
...contributory negligence and assumption of risk may be merged into the same defense and treated interchangeably); Cooper v. Mayes, 234 S.C. 491, 496, 109 S.E.2d 12, 15 (1959) ("Attempt in such cases to interrelate assumption of risk and contributory negligence is more academic than practical......
-
Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Property Regime
...of risk from the doctrine of contributory negligence, while at the same time conceding their kinship. E.g., Cooper v. Mayes, 234 S.C. 491, 495-96, 109 S.E.2d 12, 15 (1959); Ruth v. Lane, 254 S.C. 431, 433-34, 175 S.E.2d 820, 821 (1970). As noted by Professors Hubbard and Felix, "South Carol......
-
Honea v. West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company
...several cases in support of their contention. None of these cases is concerned with the precise issue before us. In Cooper v. Mayes, 234 S.C. 491, 109 S.E.2d 12 (1959), the court did state that "assumption of risk, in its true sense, rests in contract, not tort," but the court did not exclu......
-
Ruth v. Lane
...the particular cases, interrelated assumption of risk and contributory negligence. This court, however, in the case of Cooper v. Mayes, 234 S.C. 491, 109 S.E.2d 12 (1959), clearly and succinctly set forth the fundamental distinction between the two defenses in the following 'Assumption of r......