Jones v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co

• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Citation: 53 S.E. 849,141 n. c. 202
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JONES. v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.

53 S.E. 849

141 n. c. 202

JONES.

v.R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 24, 1906.

1. Master and Servant—Injuries to Servant—Defective Machinery—Merits.

Failure of a master to provide a shield or covering for a saw running naked, when such protection for the operator was a reasonable protection and in general use, constituted negligence.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, §§ 228-231.]

2. Same—Customs—Proof.

Where, in an action for injuries to the operator of a circular saw, plaintiff alleged negligence in that defendant failed to provide a shield or covering for the saw by which plaintiff' was injured, plaintiff was entitled to show that such shield was in general use, on the issue of negligence, either by proving a general custom of mill owners to provide such shields, or by showing that a large number of factories and mills used shields in similar work.

3. Same—Proximate Cause.

Where shields over saws are a reasonable, usual, and proper protection for the operative in the kind of work plaintiff was engaged in when he was injured by his hand coming in contact with an unprotected saw, the master's failure to provide a shield for the saw in question, which would have prevented the injury, was the proximate cause thereof.

4. Same—Question for Jury.

Where, in an action for injuries to a servant by coming in contact with an unprotected saw, plaintiff alleged negligence, in that defendant failed to provide a proper shield for the saw, and there was evidence that defendant did furnish a shield, but that plaintiff refused to use it, it was error for the court to submit the question whether, if the jury found that plaintiff did refuse to use a shield furnished, such failure was the proximate cause of the injury.

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; E. B. Jones, Judge.

Action by J. P. Jones against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Watson, Buxton & Watson and Manly & Hendren, for appellant.

J. S. Crogan, for appellee.

BROWN, J. Plaintiff was a boxmaker in defendant's factory, and as such operated a circular saw which projected through a table two or three inches and was alleged to be without any board or guard. The plaintiff testified that while at work he "reached out to remove some strips, when my feet slipped from under me, and I fell on my elbow, saving my face from the saw. My hand struck the back of the saw and cut off two of my fingers." The specific and only negligence alleged in the complaint and relied upon by plaintiff is as follows: "That defendant, without due care, negligently permitted this saw to remain without guard or shield, although such shield and protection was generally furnished by owners and operators of such machinery, and within a week this defendant had guards on all of its saws."

1. We think there was some evidence of negligence to go to the jury. If the defendant failed to provide a shield or covering for a saw running naked, when such protection for the operative is a reasonable protection and in general use, it would constitute negligence. Myers v. Lumber Co., 129 N. C. 254, 39 S. E. 960....