Gowns v. Watts Mill

• Decision Date: 07 June 1926
• Docket Number: 12009.
• Citation: 133 S.E. 550,135 S.C. 163
• Parties: GOWNS v. WATTS MILL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

133 S.E. 550

135 S.C. 163

GOWNS v. WATTS MILL.

No. 12009.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 7, 1926

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

Action by Burnett Gowns against the Watts Mill. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals, and plaintiff appeals from an order of the circuit judge in settling case for appeal. Affirmed.

Simpson Cooper & Babb, of Laurens, for appellant.

O. L Long, of Laurens, for respondent.

STABLER J.

This is an action for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff, a cotton mill hand, while in the employ of the defendant. The action was commenced on May 5, 1923, at which time the plaintiff was an infant and represented by his guardian ad litem, but before the case was brought to trial he reached his majority, and the action was prosecuted in his name. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a card room hand his duties being to operate several card machines; that on the 28th day of December, 1922, while standing near his machines attending to his duties, not being aware of any danger, he was hit by a belt buckle hurled with great force from a belt, which connected two overhead pulleys, and which buckle passed entirely through one of his legs, inflicting a dangerous wound; that he was confined to the hospital for a period of six weeks, during the whole of which time he endured great pain and suffering; and that his leg was permanently injured and his earning capacity greatly impaired. The fourth paragraph of the complaint is as follows:

"That the injuries inflicted as aforesaid were caused by the willful and wanton negligence of the defendant company in failing to furnish plaintiff a safe place in which to work, and safe and sound tools, machines, and appliances, in that the belt overhead which moved when the mill was in operation at a very rapid rate of speed, and was subjected to a great strain, was worn and rotten, and the ends thereof were carelessly and negligently fastened together with the buckle which was not properly fastened. That the method of fastening together belts the size of the one in question with buckles of this type is dangerous. That in spite of all this the defendant had neglected to keep said belt in repair, and was running same in a very dangerous condition, thus jeopardizing the lives and safety of all working in this part of the building. All of this was well known to the defendant company, or could have been discovered by said defendant by a proper inspection of said belt and buckle, and the said Burnett Gowns was entirely unaware of the defective condition of the belt and buckle as aforesaid."

The defendant by its answer admitted that the plaintiff was in its employ at the time he received some injuries, but denied all other allegations of the complaint. It also alleged as a defense:

"That the injuries sustained were the results of matters ordinarily incident to the employment in which he was engaged and which were assumed by him voluntarily when he engaged to work at this mill."

It appears that the fourth paragraph of the complaint originally contained an allegation "that the method of fastening together belts the size of the one in question with buckles of this type is obsolete and dangerous"; that the defendant moved to strike out this allegation; that the circuit judge ordered the word "obsolete" to be stricken out, but refused defendant's motion to strike out the balance of the allegation; and that the circuit judge also ordered the allegation as to mental anguish stricken from the complaint.

At the close of the plaintiff's testimony the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, which was granted as to punitive damages. At the close of all the testimony the defendant moved for a directed verdict, on the grounds stated in exception 4 of its appeal, but the motion was overruled.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000. The defendant thereupon made a motion for a new trial on the grounds set out in its fourth and sixth exceptions, but the motion was refused.

The defendant now comes to this court on appeal by six exceptions, imputing error to the circuit judge in the following particulars: (1) Error in failing to strike out certain allegations of the complaint; (2) error in admitting certain evidence; (3) error in refusing to direct a verdict; (4) error in the charge to the jury; (5) error in refusing a new trial.

The plaintiff also appeals from the order of the circuit judge in settling the "case" for appeal, upon the grounds that the case as settled by the trial judge is not supported by the stenographer's records of the trial.

The first exception is as follows:

"Because his honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in failing to strike out of paragraph 4 of the complaint the following: 'That the method of fastening together belts the size of the one in question with buckles of this type is dangerous.' The error being that the fact that a machine is dangerous does not show actionable negligence, if it is the usual machine ordinarily used for the work to be done."

It is true that negligence cannot be imputed to the master merely by reason of the fact that the machinery furnished is inherently dangerous, but it is also true that-

"The master is nevertheless required to exercise such reasonable care in respect of the installation, maintenance, and operation of such machinery as is commensurate with the dangers involved, and he will be liable for injuries resulting from his failure to exercise such care." 39 C.J. 341.

The allegation complained of, however, imputes negligence to the master, not because of any inherent danger in the machinery furnished, but through breach of its duty to exercise reasonable care, under all the circumstances, in respect to the installation, maintenance, etc., of the machinery being used for the work to be done, the negligence specified being that to fasten together the ends of a belt the size and length of the belt in question with buckles of the type used rendered the machinery (which may otherwise have been reasonably safe) unsafe and dangerous.

In Lester v. Railway, 93 S.C. 395, 76 S.E. 976, the court said:

"The law is so well settled in this state that it is unnecessary to quote authority that it is the duty of the master to furnish the servant with a reasonable, suitable and safe place to work and keep the same in reasonably safe and suitable repair, and furnish the servant with reasonably safe and suitable machinery and appliances to do the work with and keep the same in reasonably safe and suitable repair and this duty of the master is nonassignable."

See Gilliland v. Railway, 86 S.C. 137, 68 S.E. 186; Watson v. Railway, 91 S.C. 127, 74 S.E. 121. This assignment of error cannot be sustained.

By its second and third exceptions the appellant complains that the circuit judge erred in allowing the plaintiff, over defendant's objection, to testify that, after the accident, and after he had returned from the hospital, he had asked Griffin, an employee of the defendant, to show him the buckle which plaintiff alleged had caused his injury, but that the request was refused, and in permitting cross-examination of Griffin, defendant's witness, in reference thereto, and error on the part of the circuit judge in permitting the plaintiff, over defendant's objection to question the witness Roberts as to the comparative safety of a belt glued together, and...