Elliott v. Cranberry Furnace Co.

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOKE, J.
• Citation: Elliott v. Cranberry Furnace Co., 179 N.C. 142, 101 S.E. 611 (N.C. 1919)
• Decision Date: 27 December 1919
• Parties: ELLIOTT v. CRANBERRY FURNACE CO.

101 S.E. 611

179 N.C. 142

ELLIOTT v. CRANBERRY FURNACE CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 27, 1919

Appeal from Superior Court, Avery County; B. F. Long, Judge.

Action by Frank Elliott against the Cranberry Furnace Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant excepts and appeals. No error.

A miner leaving mine along a track in a dimly lighted tunnel, the only way provided for exit, who stepped upon the track because of an obstruction, and was struck by an unlighted car detached from a bunch that had just passed, held not contributorily negligent as matter of law.

Plaintiff claimed and offered evidence tending to show that as an employé of defendant company engaged in working in its mines at Cranberry, and while walking along the track of said company, he was knocked down by a car negligently operated by defendant on said track and seriously injured by the car running over his leg. There was denial of negligence by the company and plea of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. On issues submitted, there was judgment for plaintiff and assessing damages for the injury. Judgment on the verdict, and defendant excepted and appealed.

J. H Epps, of Jonesboro, Tenn., J. P. Johnson, of Johnson City Tenn., F. A. Linney, of Boone, and Merrimon, Adams & Johnston, of Asheville, for appellant.

J. W Ragland, of Newland, V. B. Bowers, of Elk Park, and J. J Hayes, of North Wilkesboro, for appellee.

HOKE J.

The facts in evidence tended to show: That defendant company was mining iron ore at Cranberry, N. C., and, as we understand the testimony, the ore was being taken from the mine at different levels under the mountain and approached from the outside by tracks laid in tunnels, the main track being designated as slope No. 5, and about a quarter of a mile or so from the entrance another track branched off from this, going to a different opening and known as slope No. 3. That, in conveying ore from the mine, the empty cars were taken in with an engine, and after being loaded they were later allowed to run down the slopes by gravity. That at each opening there were different squads of hands engaged, divided into night and day shifts, and the loaded cars were usually started down the slopes at or soon after the time the respective shifts quit their period of work. That the employés in coming out from their work walked down the tracks, this being a smooth, dry way, and had been accustomed to do this for several months past. That there were spaces on either side of the track of 4 to 5 feet, but these were uneven and rocky, and at places there were obstructions or pits or holes, making it necessary to take the track, and the middle of the track, as stated, was the path they all took. That there has been a plank walkway safe and suitable for the hands, but for some reason, on moving the shop or shops of the company on one of the slopes, this walkway had been discontinued, was no longer lighted, and at places it was to some extent obstructed. That there were lights along the track at places, but at the point of the injury the evidence was to the effect that the lights were very dim. That there were usually 40 to 45 hands coming out along the track after the night shifts quit work. That plaintiff was an employé on the night shift on slope No. 3, and on February 8, 1919, about 4 a. m., the hour when he usually quit work, he and two or three others were walking down the track or standing in the space at the side, at a point not far below where No. 3 slope left No. 5, when 15 to 18 loaded cars rolled by--in a bunch, or so near it as to appear that way--the larger part of them coupled together and with some car boys on the forward cars. That plaintiff, on the side, was approaching an obstruction or hole and making it necessary for him to get back on the track or cross it, and, as the bunch of cars passed, he stepped back on the track and was immediately struck by a detached car, 15 or more feet behind the others, and which was without lights or any one on it. The car ran over his leg, causing painful and serious injuries, etc.

It is the fully established principle with us that an employer of labor, in the exercise of reasonable care, is required to provide for his employé a safe place in which to do his work, and our decisions hold that the obligation extends to the approaches to it when they are under the employer's control and in the reasonable scope of this duty. Kelly v. Power Co., 160 N.C. 283, 76 S.E. 261; Myers v. Lumber Co., 129 N.C. 252, 39 S.E. 960; Deligny v. Furniture Co., 170 N.C. 189, 86 S.E. 980; Kiger v. Scales, 162 N.C. 133, 78 S.E. 76; Norris v. Cotton Mills, 154 N.C. 474, 70 S.E. 912; Vaden v. R. R., 150 N.C. 700, 64 S.E. 762.

Under the conditions presented in the evidence, the defendant company should have provided a safer way and kept it in proper condition by which these employés could have gone out from their work, and further it was a negligent breach of duty and of a pronounced type for defendant to allow a lot of loaded cars, day by day, to be started down this track without lights or adequate control or warning provided at a time when it was known that numbers of its employés would be on this track, and so exposed to very real danger. It was not only probable, but well-nigh certain, that serious injury would be the result to one or more of them, and, under the principle of the cases cited and others of like kind, the court committed no error to defendant's prejudice in submitting the...