Dixon v. Chiquola Mfg. Co

• Citation: 86 s.c. 436,68 S.E. 643
• Parties: DIXON v. CHIQUOLA MFG. CO.
• Decision Date: 27 July 1910
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

68 S.E. 643
86 s.c. 436

DIXON
v.
CHIQUOLA MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 27, 1910.

1. Master and Servant (§ 265^*)—Injuries to Servant—Burden op Proof—Knowledge of Defects.

The law imputes to the master knowledge

of latent dangers in instrumentalities, and re quires him to show In an action for a servant's injuries, caused by defects therein, that he could not have discovered the danger by due diligence.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 905; Dec. Dig. § 265.*]

2. Master and Servant (§ 89*)—Injuries to Servant—Scope of Employment.

The scope of a servant's duties is determined by what he was employed to do, and what he actually did with his employer's knowledge and consent, and an employe' who was in the habit of performing certain duties when injured is not a volunteer in performing such duties.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 153; Dec. Dig. § 89.*]

3. Master and Servant (§ 289*)—Injuries to Servant — Question fob Jury — Contributory Negligence.

In an employe's action for injuries, evidence held to make it a question for the jury whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. § 1089; Dec. Dig. § 289.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; S. W. G. Shipp, Judge.

Action by C. W. Dixon against the Chiquola Manufacturing Company. From an order of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed in part, and remanded for new trial.

Tillman & Watson and Paget & Watkins, for appellant.

Wm. G. Sirrine and Bonham, Watkins & Allen, for respondent

GARY, A. J. This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the negligence of the defendant.

The allegations of the complaint, material to the questions involved, are as follows: "That at the times hereinafter mentioned plaintiff was working in the weaveroom of the defendant, which is situated on the first floor of its cotton mill. Defendant had installed in this room a system of pipes, which connect with the boiler, and which distribute steam over the said room, when the humidifiers need assistance, to preserve the proper humidity and temperature. There is a main pipe running from the boiler room, which enters the weaveroom through the wall of the mill. This main pipe runs along the side of the wall, parallel with the floor of the weaveroom, and at different places pipes have been joined to the main pipe which are perpendicular thereto, and which run up the walls of the mill some five or six feet, and are equipped at the end with a mouth, through which the steam comes into the weaveroom. Also connecting with this main pipe is a drainpipe which runs through the wall of the mill into the open air, and which drains the water from the condensed steam out of the main pipe. There is a valve at the point where the main pipe enters the weaveroom, and each of the perpendicular pipes have valves, to regulate the influx of steam from the boiler into the room. On February 3, 1908, plaintiff went to Ms work in the mill as

^*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes

[68 S.E. 644]

usual. The weather was very cold and had been for the several days previous. About 9 o'clock that morning plaintiff, feeling that the room needed steam to bring about the proper humidity and temperature so that the work of weaving could be properly done, went to one of these perpendicular pipes. Plaintiff and the other weavers had been accustomed to turn the valves to these pipes, when it was necessary, all of which was well known to defendant, its agents, and servants. Plaintiff turned this valve to let in more steam, and, instead of steam coming out of the pipe, hot water poured out on plaintiff and injured him. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the direct and proximate cause of his injury...