Lasure v. Graniteville Mfg. Co.

• Citation: 18 S.C. 275
• Parties: LASURE v. GRANITEVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
• Decision Date: 27 November 1882
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

18 S.C. 275

LASURE

v.GRANITEVILLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 27th, 1882.

1. After verdict in favor of plaintiff, alleged errors of the Circuit judge, in his charge to the jury, either of omission or commission, relating solely to the right of recovery and not affecting the measure of damages, are immaterial to plaintiff, and will not be considered on his appeal.

2. In action against a corporation for damages sustained by plaintiff while in their employment, the Circuit judge did not err in refusing to charge the jury “that even if the jury find there was a defect in the tramway known to the company, yet, if they find that the plaintiff also knew of said defect, or by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence could have known of it, and still voluntarily continued in the employment of the company, he cannot recover,” for these are questions of fact to be determined by the jury under all the circumstances of each particular case.

3. The exercise of due care and diligence in ascertaining whether machinery or other appliances furnished an employe to work with, are kept in proper repair, is the duty of the master and not of the servant.

4. A master must provide his servants with safe and suitable machinery and appliances necessary for their work, and must also keep them in repair, and is liable to those servants for injuries resulting to them from his negligence in these matters, or for the negligence of mechanics or other subordinates employed by him to perform these, his duties.

5. Gunter v. Graniteville Manufacturing Company, 18 S.C 262, approved.

Before ALDRICH, J., Aiken, April, 1880.

This was an action by Thomas J. Lasure against the Graniteville Manufacturing Company, commenced November 21st, 1877. The complaint demanded $10,000 damages for injuries sustained in a fall; and the proof was that plaintiff's arm was broken, wrist dislocated, hip injured and slightly dislocated, and his face cut from forehead to chin.

The charge of the judge to the jury was as follows:

You will bear in mind that this case is not to be determined by the rule which applies to common carriers. When a railroad or steamboat company, or a stage coach, or any other conveyance for public travel, undertakes to carry passengers for hire, their contract is they will carry them safely, and they are liable in damages for any injury that may be received, except the same may be from the act of God or the public enemy. Hence, if a corporation undertakes to carry you or your goods from one place to another, for hire, it is liable for any injury to the person or loss of goods, whether it be from unavoidable accident or carelessness. But such is not the rule, as applied to employes in a factory or a railroad, or in any other industrial occupation. In such case, when a man engages to work for wages, he takes a certain amount of risks himself, and if an injury is received in the business in which he engages, the employer, be it railroad, factory or steamboat company, is not liable in damages unless it be made to appear clearly to you that the injury so received is the result of carelessness or negligence on the part of the employer.

There can be no doubt that this plaintiff has been injured, and seriously injured. His face was cut open, his arm broken, and his hip injured. He has suffered great bodily pain and anxiety; been confined to his bed for weeks, prevented from the labor by which he made a sustenance, and a burden to his family and friends. Nay, more, he is still suffering from the injuries received at the time of the accident. If all this be the consequence of negligence or wanton carelessness on the part of the defendant, the Graniteville Company, they are liable in damages, and should be made to pay the penalty for their neglect. On the other hand, however, if this be one of the risks which every operative takes when he engages in the business of a factory, however great may be his injury, however painful his suffering, however permanent his hurt, the company is not liable, because it is one of the accidents which may or may not occur, and of which he takes the risk for hire.

So that the first question presented to you is: Was the defendant guilty of carelessness or negligence which occasioned the injury, the pain, the anxiety and the loss of time of which the plaintiff complains? The law makes you the sole judges of that question. I cannot assist you. In considering it, you will ask: Was this structure safe, or was it carelessly constructed? Was it kept in good repairs by ordinary diligence? Did the defendant show that solicitude and concern for the safety of the persons in their employment which men of ordinary prudence exhibit in the conduct of their affairs? Was it one of those accidents that might have happened under the exercise of ordinary prudence, or was it the result of carelessness and neglect? If the former, the company is not liable, because that was one of the risks the plaintiff took when he contracted to receive wages for his labors. If the latter, the company is liable, because the undertaking of the plaintiff was to work for wages, protected by the ordinary diligence which prudent men exercise in the conduct of their affairs. These are questions for you, and as you resolve them, so will be your verdict.

Another question for your serious consideration is: Did the plaintiff contribute to this accident by his own negligence, or by his violation of the rules of the company? And in this connection you will consider what was the rule of the company whose servant he was. Was it a rule when a bale fell off the truck the employe was to send for the officer who had the road in charge? Did he throw that bale of cotton with a sudden jerk, or did he lower it easily on his truck? Would the road have broken if the plaintiff had not thrown down the bale? Now, if he violated the rules of the company or recklessly threw his bale from the edge to the side on the truck or the platform, so as to occasion a sudden jar, which broke the support of the shoulder resting on the sill of the factory, did he not contribute to the accident? If so, the company is not liable, because he was deficient in that prudence which men ordinarily display in the exercise of their business.

These are questions for your solution. As you solve them, so will be your verdict. While these great enterprises are to be held to the strictest responsibility, and made to pay for any damage resulting from their carelessness or negligence, yet they are not to be bled and...