Jennings v. Edgefield Mfg. Co
| Decision Date | 07 October 1905 |
| Parties | JENNINGS . v. EDGEFIELD MFG. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
JENNINGS .
v.
EDGEFIELD MFG. CO.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Oct. 7, 1905.
1. Appeal — Review — Sufficiency of Evidence.
Where, in an action for personal injuries, there was no motion of nonsuit as to the cause of action for punitive damages, and no request to charge that the plaintiff was not entitled under the evidence to recover the same, the Supreme Court cannot inquire if there was any evidence to warrant a finding of the same.
2. Trial—Instructions.
That the court in his charge states* an admitted fact does not make the charge one on the facts.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, §§ 432-434.]
3. Same—Necessity of Request.
Where modifications of instructions are desired, requests submitting such modifications should be submitted.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, § 628.]
4. Same.
An instruction as to elements of damage in an action for personal injuries which have universal judicial recognition is not a charge on the facts, where the fact of injury was not in dispute.
5. Master and Servant—Dangerous Appliances.
The law imputes to the master the knowledge of danger, though latent, in the use of appliances which he provides for his servant.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 246.]
6. Same.
The test of a master's duty in furnishing appliances is whether he furnished such as were reasonably safe, and not whether they were of the character "ordinarily in use."
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 173, 178.]
7. Appeal — Review — Exceptions to Evidence.
Exceptions to the admission of evidence will not be considered, where no grounds are stated in the printed case or the argument.
Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 3, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, § 4259.]
8. Trial—Instructions—Repetition.
Where the court has already charged that a master is not liable for injury due to the ordinary hazards of the business or the negligence of the servant, failure to repeat the instruction in plaintiff's request as to the master's duty to furnish safe appliances is not error.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, §§ 651-659.]
9. Same.
Where all the main issues in the cause are covered by the charge, failure to charge a proposition not covered by request is not error.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, §§ 627, 630.]
10. Master and Servant — Defect in Appliances—Knowledge of Master.
Where a master supplies an appliance, and has knowledge of a defect therein, he cannot escape liability for injury to a servant from the defect on the ground that the duty of the servant was to inspect the machinery, and that he failed to discover the defect, where he gave no notice of the same.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 299.]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Edgefield County; Purdy, Judge.
Action by A. H. Jennings against the Edgefield Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The following are the defendant's exceptions:
"(1) Excepts because his honor erred in charging the jury that 'it was the duty of the defendant company to keep the means and appliances and machinery in proper condition, to keep them in proper repair, ' whereas he should have charged the jury that it was the duty of the defendant company to furnish proper machinery and appliances to the engineer, to plaintiff herein, to enable him to operate the machinery, and it was the duty of the engineer to use said appliances in such a manner as to keep the machinery and appliances in proper repair and in a reasonably safe condition.
"(2) Excepts because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'Where a person in the employment of another is injured through the default or neglect of the master who employs him, and the injury is due to said fault or neglect, then the party can recover.' It is respectfully submitted that this is a charge upon the facts and in violation of the Constitution, in that the judge assumes that there was an injury.
"(3) Excepts because his honor erred in charging the jury that they 'might give punitive damages in this case, ' when there is no testimony showing willfulness, recklessness, wantonness, and disregard of the servant's rights.
"(4) Excepts because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'Was his injury due to the negligence of the defendant, the ordinary negligence of the defendant, in the situation in which the plaintiff was placed?' It is respectfully submitted that this is a charge upon the facts, and in violation of the Constitution, in that the judge assumes that the plaintiff was injured.
"(5) Because his honor erred in charging as follows: 'Was his injury due to the negligence of the defendant, the ordinary negligence of the defendant, in the situation in which the plaintiff was placed? If so, he can recover such actual or compensatory damages as may be entitled'—whereas he should have charged that if the defendant was negligent and the plaintiff did not contribute to that negligence of the defendant, was the sole and proximate cause of the injury, if there was an injury, then he could recover actual damages.
"(6) Because his honor erred in charging the jury in reference to punitive damages; there being no testimony upon which the jury could...
To continue reading
Request your trial