Jefferson v. City Of Raleigh

• Decision Date: 09 November 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 252.)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JEFFERSON. v. CITY OF RALEIGH.

140 S.E. 76

(194 N. C. 479)

JEFFERSON.

v.CITY OF RALEIGH.

(No. 252.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 9, 1927.

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Devin, Judge.

Action by James Jefferson against the City of Raleigh for damages resulting from personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. No error.

This was a civil action for damages resulting from personal injury sustained by the plaintiff.

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff was employed by the city of Raleigh as a laborer in digging ditches, and that on the 27th day of May, 1926, he was instructed by the foreman to take a ten-pound sledge hammer and assist the foreman in cutting a cast-iron pipe. The foreman held a cleaver or chisel in his hand placed upon the pipe, and the plaintiff was required to hit the cleaver with a sledge hammer, thus cutting the pipe. The plaintiff struck the cleaver or chisel with the sledge hammer, and a shiver of iron or steel from the hammer or pipe struck him in the eye, resulting in blindness.

The pertinent allegation of negligence is as follows:

"In that the defendant negligently, carelessly and wrongfully adopted an unsafe method and an unsafe means of cutting said iron pipe, when there was a reasonably safe method of performing such services, in that the defendant was attempting to cut the six-inch cast-iron water main with chisel and sledge hammer, when the usual and ordinary method of cutting such pipes at said times, and for a long time prior thereto, was by the use of a saw or pipe cutter, which said devices were in general and accepted use by others under similar conditions, and said devices were accessible and easily obtainable."

The theory of liability advanced by the plaintiff is that the sledge hammer was a very heavy instrument for the purpose for which it was used, and that a reasonably prudent person could foresee that shivers of steel or iron were likely to fly from the chisel or pipe from a blow with this heavy instrument. The defendant denied that it was negligent and offered evidence tending to show that the method adopted by it in cutting the pipe was reasonably safe and in general use.

Upon the issues submitted to the jury the question of negligence was resolved against the defendant and damages in the sum of $2,500 awarded.

From the judgment upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.

Thomas W. Ruffin and C. W. Beckwith, both of Raleigh, for appellant.

Douglass & Douglass, R. N. Simms, R. L. McMillan and R. Roy Carter, all of Raleigh, for appellee.

BROGDEN, J. [1] The law of this state is that an employer of labor is required to exercise ordinary care in providing employees with reasonably safe methods and means to do the work for which they are employed. Thus, in Noble v. Lumber Co., 151 N. C. 76, 65 S. E. 622, 134 Am. St. Rep. 974, it is said:

"It is elementary learning that it is the duty of the master to furnish his servant a reasonably safe method, as far as practicable, for doing his work."

Again, in Terrell v. Washington, 158 N. C. 281, 73 S. E. 888, it is held:

"The master fails to supply a 'safe place' for work if he allows work to be conducted there habitually in a manner needlessly dangerous to servants."

To the same effect is the ruling in Tate v. Mirror Co., 165 N. C. 273, 81 S. E. 328, as follows:

"Whether it was practical for the defendant to use any other device than a metal pipe for the purpose of insuring safety to its employee, and whether ordinary prudence required the use of it, were questions for the jury, which were properly submitted to them. If the situation called for the use of a different device, and this would have appeared to the ordinarily careful man, under the same circumstances, it was the duty ofthe defendant to supply it, instead of needlessly subjecting his servant to danger."

The opinion of the court, quoting from Smith v. Baker, A. C. 325, proceeds:

"An employer is...