House v. Southern Ry. Co
| Citation | 152 N.C. 397,67 S.E. 981 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1910 |
| Parties | HOUSE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. |
1. Master and Servant (§ 107*)—Safe Place for Work—Appliances.
The rule requiring the master to provide a reasonably safe place for work and reasonably safe and suitable appliances does not as a rule apply to the use of ordinary, everyday tools, nor to ordinary conditions requiring no special care or preparation, where the defects are readily observable, and where there was no good reason-to suppose that injury would result.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 199-212; Dec. Dig. § 107.*]
2. Negligence (§ 56*)—Personal Injury— "Proximate Cause.
"Proximate cause" has been defined as the doing or omitting to do an act which a person of ordinary prudence could foresee would naturally or probably produce the injury.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, _see Negligence, Cent. Dig. § 71; Dec. Dig. § 56.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5758-5769; vol. 8, p. 7771.]
3. Master and Servant (§ 111*)—Injuries to Servant—Appliances.
Defendant railroad was not liable for injuries to a servant whose hand, while she was attempting in the performance of her duties as car cleaner to raise a car window which had become fast and the pull of which was worn smooth, slipped and went through the glass; the appliance being a simple one, and the injury one not ordinarily likely to happen.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 215-217; Dec. Dig. § 111.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; Long, Judge.
Action by Ella House against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Civil action tried at November term, 1909, of the superior court of Iredell county.
On issues submitted the jury rendered the following verdict:
Motion to dismiss as on judgment of nonsuit formally entered and renewed at close of entire testimony, motion denied, and defendant excepted. Judgment on verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed
L. C. Caldwell, for appellant.
G. W. Garland and Armfield & Turner, for appellee.
The plaintiff set forth her cause of action in the complaint as follows:
"Second. That on the ——day of De-
cember, 1906, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant as a servant at Salisbury, and engaged in cleaning passenger coaches of the defendant for a valuable consideration. That on the aforesaid day of December, 1906, while the plaintiff was at work, as aforesaid, in the performance of her duties upon a car belonging to the defendant, she was ordered and directed by the defendant to raise the windows of the car, one of which had just been repaired by the defendant, but had been repaired in such a negligent manner that, when plaintiff attempted to raise the said window, the defendant had carelessly permitted it to become so fastened and tight that, when she undertook to raise it, she had to exert an unusual amount of force, and in doing so her hand slipped and went through the window pane, breaking the glass and cutting her arm and hand, whereby she was made to suffer mental agony, bodily pain, and was permanently injured.
And offered evidence tending to sustain it; and on this statement the court is of opinion that the motion to dismiss as on judgment of nonsuit should have been allowed.
We have repeatedly decided that an employer of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antler v. Cox
... ... S ... Ry. Co., 138 Ind. 290, 46 Am. St. 384, 37 N.E. 721; ... Wheaton v. Wagner Lake Ice etc. Co., 151 Mich. 100, ... 114 N.W. 853; House v. Southern R. Co., 152 N.C. 397, 67 S.E ... SULLIVAN, ... C. J. Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur ... [27 ... ...
-
Laurel Mills v. Ward
... ... St. Rep. 854; Mathis v ... Stockyards Company, 185 Mo. 435, 84 S.W. 66; Post v ... C. B. & Q. R. Co., 121 Mo.App. 562, 97 S.W. 233; ... House v. So. R. Co., 152 N.C. 397, 67 S.E. 981; ... Dunn v. So. R. Co., 151 N.C. 313, 66 S.E. 134; ... Wausau Southern Lumber Company v. Cooley, 94 So ... ...
- Robinson v. J. B. Ivey & Co
-
Wausau Southern Lumber Co. v. Cooley
... ... It often happens that they get out of repair or ... become defective by use; but the defects are patent to any ... person who handles them, and generally can be easily and ... quickly repaired by the servant who is using them. Implements ... and tools like these are used in the house, on the farm, and ... in fact everywhere. They embrace the utensils of the kitchen, ... many articles used in the ordinary household duties, as well ... as hoes, rakes, spades, and other like implements in common ... and daily use on every farm; and it would be going far beyond ... the reason ... ...