Deaton v. Gloucester Lumber Co.
| Citation | 81 S.E. 774,165 N.C. 560 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 558. |
| Parties | DEATON v. GLOUCESTER LUMBER CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Henderson County; Justice, Judge.
Action by Charles Q. Deaton against the Gloucester Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.
Evidence of the manner a cut-off saw unexpectedly sprang from its shield while at rest, injuring an employee working at the machine, held to present a case for the jury, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The following issues were submitted to the jury:
"(1) Was the machinery by which the plaintiff alleges he was injured constructed in a reasonably safe manner, and was the same in a reasonably safe condition at the time of the alleged injury? Answer: No.
(2) Did the defendant provide a reasonably safe place in which for the plaintiff to work? Answer: No.
(3) Did the plaintiff, with full knowledge of the condition of defendant's machinery and condition of the place provided in which for him to work, assume the risk of his employment? Answer: No.
(4) Was the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.
(5) Did the plaintiff, by his own carelessness and negligence contribute to his own injury? Answer: No.
(6) What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: Three thousand ($3,000.00) dollars."
Welch Galloway, of Brevard, and McD. Ray, of Hendersonville, for appellant.
Smith & Shipman, of Hendersonville, for appellee.
The defendant insists that, taken in its most favorable light the evidence of the plaintiff did not make out a case of negligence against the defendant, and that the motion to nonsuit should have been allowed. This assignment of error substantially covers the case, and we do not think that any other needs discussion.
The evidence offered for the plaintiff tended to prove that he was employed by the defendant to operate a cut-off saw, which was installed at right angles to a table, on which were placed live rollers, over which slabs, sills, etc., were conveyed from the main saw, which was 30 feet from the cut-off saw; that it was the duty of the plaintiff to use the cut-off saw in cutting the slabs as they came over the rollers from the main saw, and to guide and direct the passage of the sills and other lumber over the rollers, past the cut-off saw, where it emptied into a dock several feet beyond; that this table was at the point of the cut-off saw just in front of the shield in which the cut-off saw rested when not in use, and timbers could not be conducted past the cut-off saw when it was out of the shield.
The saw was set in a frame of two upright pieces of timber, 14 feet in height, and which moved to and fro as the saw was operated. The saw was operated by a lever which the operator pulls to bring it forward out of the shield for use, and which he pushes to put it back into the shield. The saw frame, when the saw is at rest in the shield, is about 12 or 14 inches beyond the perpendicular, and is held by its own weight. Fastened to the top or near the top of the saw frame is a rope, which runs over a pulley and reaches...
To continue reading
Request your trial