Green v. Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 07 October 1905
• Citation: 72 S.C. 398,52 S.E. 45
• Parties: GREEN. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

52 S.E. 45
72 S.C. 398

GREEN.
v.
SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 7, 1905.

1. Master and Servant — Negligence — Defective Machinery.

Where an accident happens to a servant by the breaking of a machine in ordinary use, and there is neither proof of defects in the machine nor of error in its use by the servant, the law will not draw the inference that the machine was defective, and then from that the inference of lack of care of the master.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 881, 884.]

2. Same—Evidence.

Where an engine hostler was injured by an alleged defect in the machinery, and the cause of the accident was not shown by plaintiff's evidence_% and it did not appear that it might not have been due to causes for which the defendant was not responsible, and there was no evidence that any of the causes mentioned by plaintiff as possible causes were present, a judgment for defendant was proper.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; Gary, J.

Action by T. A. J. Green against the Southern Railway Company and others.

[52 S.E. 46]

Prom order of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

McCullough & McSwain, for appellant.

T. P. Cothran, for respondents.

WOODS, J. This is an appeal from an order of nonsuit. The action is to recover the sum of $10,000 damages on account of personal injuries received the 17th day of May, 1903. The allegations of the complaint are that at that time plaintiff was a hostler in the employ of the defendant, Southern Railway Company; that, as hostler, it was his duty to shift engine No. 1, 072, which pulled in train No. 40, going north, and place it upon the side track to be inspected and repaired by the defendants, and, when informed by them that the engine was ready, to place it upon the main track, so that it might pull train No. 97, going south; that the engine was left standing near the turntable pit, and, after plaintiff was informed by the defendants that the engine was ready, he reversed the lever and turned on the steam, but, instead of the engine going backward, as it would have done if it had been in proper repair, it moved immediately forward, and fell into the turntable pit, a depth of several feet, and plaintiff received the injuries mentioned in the complaint. The acts of negligence charged are: First. Furnishing the plaintiff with a defective engine; second, failing properly to inspect and repair the same. At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, the circuit judge granted a nonsuit upon the ground "that there is no evidence tending to establish the allegations of negligence contained in the complaint."

The following is a statement of the material testimony: Plaintiff testified that, after placing the engine upon the side track, so that it might be inspected and repaired, as was the custom and duty of the defendants, he left it from 50 minutes to an hour. The defendants West and Greeson were about the engine, as plaintiff supposed, for the purpose of inspecting and repairing the same, as was their duty. He did not see either of the defendants under the engine, but did see two of the "helpers, " who were not expert machinists, under it. To properly inspect an engine it is necessary that the machinists should go underneath it. Between the time that he left the engine and went back to it, the defendant Greeson was on the engine, and "moved the lever backwards and forwards to disconnect the valve stem."...