Gunter v. Wicker
| Decision Date | 31 October 1881 |
| Citation | 85 N.C. 310 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ABNER GUNTER v. JOHN WICKER and others. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION for damages, tried at Fall Term, 1880, of CHATHAM Superior Court, before Eure, J.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, appeal by defendants.
Mr. John Manning, for plaintiff .
Mr. John M. Moring, for defendants .
The plaintiff, employed as foreman in running the steam saw mill of the defendants, and who had been in their service for five months, among other duties assigned, was required to oil the machinery after cutting up the third log, and also of every one thousand shingles made. The defendant Wicker, one of the partnership proprietors and the general manager of the business under whose control the plaintiff worked, was personally attending to the sawing. The third log had been cut and the machinery stopped, when the plaintiff as he was accustomed to do, and had before done with defendant's knowledge and without objection or caution from the latter, entered into the fly wheel, for greater convenience in doing his work, and was in the act of oiling the machinery when the defendant without notice or warning turned on steam and set the mill in motion, by means whereof the plaintiff sustained personal injury for which the action is brought. If the engine had been put upon a dead centre, it could only have been started by applying a direct lever force, and the plaintiff's position in the fly wheel would have been entirely safe, and the turning on of steam would have been unattended with damage. There was some conflict in the testimony of the parties, but the verdict upon the issues presupposes the substantial facts recited.
The exceptions we are required to consider are to an instruction asked and refused, and to that given in response to the defendants' request. The court was asked to charge the jury if they believe the plaintiff knew how to secure his absolute safety by putting the fly wheel upon a dead center, and if he could easily and quietly do so, and neglected thus to secure his own safety, his failure to do so amounted to such contributory negligence as to debar a recovery. Instead of this, the jury were directed that if the plaintiff was instructed to arrest the motion of the machinery on a dead center, when the oiling was to be done, or if such was the custom of the mill, and the plaintiff neglected to do so, his failure would be contributory negligence, and the verdict should be for the defendants.
The other instructions as to the liability of the principal for an injury suffered by one from the negligence of the other co-servants and co-employees, acting under one common superior, have no application, since the damages result from negligence imputed to the proprietor and manager, to whom the plaintiff was subordinate.
We think the jury were properly guided in the directions under which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Smith v. Gould
-
Smith v. Gould
... ... chance. I will admit, however, that North Carolina does ... subscribe to the doctrine of imputed knowledge. Gunter v ... Wicker, 85 N.C. 310; McLamb v. R. Co., 122 N.C ... 862, 873, 29 S.E. 894. But see page 874 (122 N. C., 29 S.E ... 894), where it is ... ...
-
Edge v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
...have been averted, notwithstanding the previous negligence of another, then, under the doctrine of Davies v. Mann and Gunter v. Wicker [85 N. C. 310], the breach of duty was the proximate cause of any injury growing out of such accident, and, when it is a proximate cause, the company is lia......
-
Smith v. Gould, (No. 6942)
...of the last clear chance, I will admit, however, that North Carolina does subscribe to the doctrine of imputed knowledge. Gunter v. Wicker, 85 N. C. 310; McLamb v. Rr., 122 N. C. 862, 873. (But see page 874 where it is held that the same degree of care is required of one party as of the oth......