Goodwin v. D.C. Mills Co. Of D.C.*

• Decision Date: 28 April 1908
• Citation: Goodwin v. D.C. Mills Co. Of D.C.*, 80 S.C. 349, 61 S.E. 390 (S.C. 1908)
• Parties: GOODWIN. v. COLUMBIA MILLS CO. OF COLUMBIA.*
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

80 S.C. 349

61 S.E. 390

GOODWIN.

v.COLUMBIA MILLS CO. OF COLUMBIA.^*

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 28, 1908.

1. Master and Servant—Negligence—Revolving Belts—Evidence.

That an employér permits a revolving belt to hang loosely at a place where a child is required to work warrants a finding of negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 954-977.]

2. Same—Question for Jury.

Under the evidence in an action for injury to a child employé caught by a revolving belt, a nonsuit held properly refused.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, '§§ 1010-1050.]

3. Same — Infants—Employment — Knowledge of Danger—Presumptions.

An employér may assume that a servant 14 years old or older has reasonable capacity to comprehend obvious dangers, and that he assumes the known risks, and, as to servants between 7 and 14 years old, there is a rebuttable presumption of incapacity; the burden resting on him asserting capacity to prove it.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Geo. E. Prince, Judge.

Personal injury action by William Nathan against the Columbia Mills Company of Columbia. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Shand & Shand, for appellant.

F. G. Tompkins and A. F. Spigner, for respondent.

WOODS, J. The defendant appeals from a judgment for $2,500 for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff while employéd in defendant's mill.

The first exception assigns error in the refusal to grant a nonsuit. The testimony on the part of the plaintiff and defendant could not have been more conflicting as to the cause of the accident. The plaintiff, a negro boy between 12 and 13 years of age at the time, was employéd as a floor sweeper in defendant's mill. He alone testified in his behalf as to the circumstances under which he was hurt. Shortly stated, this is his account: He was required to sweep in the cardroom while the machinery was in motion. While so employéd, he went into a narrow alley where it was not practicable to have any guard to protect him from contact with the machinery. The purpose of going through the alley was to deposit some waste in a can on the other side. In returning, and while in the act of taking up his broom, a moving belt hanging loose caught his arm and carried him up to and over the shafting. Plaintiff said he had been employéd in mill work about four years, had often seen loose belts running, had been told not to meddle with them, and knew they were dangerous. He couldhave gone around it, and could have swept elsewhere; but, if he had attempted to do so, he would have been required by his superior to return and sweep by the...