Lamb v. Littman

• Decision Date: 28 May 1901
• Citation: 128 N.C. 361,38 S.E. 911
• Parties: LAMB . v. LITTMAN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

38 S.E. 911

128 N.C. 361

LAMB .

v.LITTMAN.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 28, 1901.

MASTER AND SERVANT—ILL-TEMPERED OVERSEER—MASTER'S LIABILITY.

1. The master owes an obligation to his servants not to place incompetent or unskilled overseers over them.

2. Where a mill owner places a man generally reputed to be ill-tempered and mean to children and other help over a 10 year old boy, he will be liable for his violent handling of the boy in urging him to the proper performance of his work.

Appeal from superior court Rowan county; Bryan, Judge.

Action by W. T. Lamb, by his next friend, against I. Littman. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

R. Lee Wright and B. B. Miller, for appellant.

Overman & Gregory, for appellee.

COOK, J. From a careful review of the evidence, we find that it establishes a prima facie case; and his honor erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit and in not submitting the issues to the jury. The evidence shows that defendant in running his mill through agents, had one general superintendent, who hired and discharged hands, and also had spinning-room superintendents, bosses, or overseers, who controlled and directed the hands in the performance of their work, and also sometimes hired, and, in case of disobedience, of which they were the judges, discharged the hands under them. Burruss was a spinning-room superintendent or boss or overseer, and was in command of the department in which plaintiff, a 10 year old boy, was a floor sweeper. Burruss' reputation was bad among mill men (that is, he was mean to children and his help); and it was generally known, and had been so for years, at Albemarle, Concord, Salisbury, and elsewhere, where he had worked in mills. Notwithstanding this fact, which ought to have been known to defendant, he was employed in this mill and placed in control of others, including this boy of tender years. And herein lies the principle involved in this appeal. In employing servants, the master is under obligation not to associate incompetent ones with the skilled and competent to their hurt and injury. So much the more, then, is it the duty of the master not to employ unskilled and incompetent bosses or overseers, who are to act in his place and stead over subordinates who are under their care and control and subject to their orders. It does not appear that Burruss was unskilled, but his incompetency for the supervision of children and other like help is apparent and emphasized by his bad character for being mean to children and other help. We have no reason for judging that such character was not actually known to defendant. It was generally known among mill men, from whom he might have informed himself if he had inquired, and it was his duty to have been reasonably diligent in obtaining the information before intrusting such care and responsibility to him. In the enlargement of our business and industrial enterprises made necessary by the rules of economy, it is frequently impossible for the master to give a personal supervision and direction to the business. "It is now universally held in American courts that a master always may, and sometimes must, have a servant who acts as his...