Goodman v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

• Decision Date: 30 January 1911
• Citation: 69 S.E. 1089,87 S.C. 449
• Parties: GOODMAN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

69 S.E. 1089

87 S.C. 449

GOODMAN v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 30, 1911

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

Action by S. B. Goodman against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Simpson Cooper & Babb, for appellant. Ferguson & Featherstone and John Gary Evans, 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 under consideration, are as follows: "That the plaintiff was on the 30th day of November, 1905, in the employ of the defendant, engaged in the work of erecting a telegraph line and was assisting in stringing a wire of the defendant on poles which had been erected for that purpose, and under the orders and instructions of the defendant the plaintiff was required to climb the poles, and to place the wire in line and tie the same to the bracket on the pole, and, after the wire had been tied, it was to be drawn tight by the agent, employé, and representative of the defendant, known as the 'block puller,' but the said representative of the defendant, was not to pull and draw tight the said wire until this plaintiff had notified the block puller, the representative of the defendant as aforesaid, that he was ready to have the wire tightened, but the defendant, not having proper regard for the safety of the plaintiff, on the said 30th day of November, 1905, and while the said plaintiff was in the discharge of his duties, and was on the pole of the defendant placing the wire in proper line, and preparing to tie the same to the bracket on said pole, and without waiting for any notice from the plaintiff to pull said wire, by its agent and representative, negligently and carelessly, violently, and forcibly, and unexpectedly to this plaintiff pulled the wire that this plaintiff had hold of, as his duties required him to have, and thereby carelessly and negligently jerked the plaintiff from the top of the pole to the ground, a distance of some 25 or 30 feet. ***" The defendant denied the allegations of negligence, and set up the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of risk. At the close of the plaintiff's testimony, the defendant's attorneys made a motion for a nonsuit, which was granted, on two grounds: (1) Because the testimony showed that the injury was sustained through the negligence of a fellow servant; and (2) because the testimony showed that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

The first question that will be considered is whether there was error on the part of his honor, the presiding judge, in ruling that the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow servant. S. B. Goodman, the plaintiff, testified as follows: "Q. Where were you working in November, 1905? A. I was working for the Western Union Telegraph Company helping them to string wire from Savannah to Macon, Ga. Q. In what capacity were you working? A. Lineman. Q. You were a lineman? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you have other linemen? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many others? A. There were three of us. Q. Three other linemen? A. Yes, sir. Q. What other laborers, if any, did you have? A. We had the groundmen--those that worked on the ground. Q. What did they do? A. Some of them--one of them pulled the block, and the other carried the wire--reeled it off the reel. Q. Who was in...