Jackson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1908
• Parties: JACKSON v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

62 S.E. 854

81 S.C. 564

JACKSON v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 17, 1908

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

Action by Joseph Jackson, by his guardian ad litem, Martin Hardin against the Southern Cotton Oil Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Modified and affirmed.

Mordecai & Gadsden, Rutledge & Hagood, and J. S. Muller, for appellant.

Frank G. Tompkins, for respondent.

WOODS J.

This appeal relates to an order allowing an amendment to the complaint while the trial was in progress, and to conditions imposed in an order for a new trial nisi. The plaintiff recovered a verdict for $1,500 for personal injuries. The negligence of the defendant, to which the plaintiff, a laborer in defendant's employment, ascribed his injuries was thus set out in the original complaint: "That the plaintiff's duties as such laborer required him to go to and fro about the said mill, and at times hereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the 18th day of December, 1905, while going through the said mill, the plaintiff fell into a hole in the floor in such a way as to get his left foot caught in a conveyor, a piece of machinery for transferring cotton seed, which extended under said floor, and suffered his said foot to be seriously bruised. *** That the defendant company not regarding their duty to the plaintiff, conducted themselves so carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully in this behalf: (1) In that they provided an unsafe place for the plaintiff to work without adequate guards or protection, and with the covering of said conveyor left open and unprotected in such a manner that the same was unsafe and dangerous; (2) that the defendants negligently failed to employ a sufficient number of men and continuously while the machinery was in motion to have some one at the uncovered place in the floor to warn and prevent the plaintiff and others from falling therein, and by reason thereof the plaintiff suffered the said injury to his foot."

Upon the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, the circuit court allowed the plaintiff to amend the fourth paragraph by striking out "the floor" and "under," and inserting in place thereof the words "a conveyor box" for "the floor," and "over" for "under". The defendant opposed the amendment, and after it was made, moved that the cause be withdrawn from the jury and time allowed to answer...