Martin v. Highland Park Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1901 |
| Citation | 38 S.E. 876,128 N.C. 264 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. HIGHLAND PARK MFG. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Mecklenburg county; Robinson, Judge.
Action by J. E. Martin against the Highland Park Manufacturing Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Where a weaver was injured while assisting the loom fixer in repairing a loom at the latter's request, the employer is not liable for such injury, as the loom fixer was without authority to put the plaintiff at any other work than weaving.
Osborne Maxwell & Keerans, for appellant.
Jones & Tillett and Burwell, Walker & Cansler, for appellee.
We find no error in the ruling of his honor in sustaining the motion of defendant to dismiss the action, as in case of nonsuit upon demurrer to plaintiff's evidence. The evidence does not show negligence by defendant or its agent. In endeavoring to put a new key in the shaft, in place of the worn or defective one, Webb, the loom fixer, found it difficult to insert the new one without help. That it did not fit easily was to be expected, from the fact that its proper use required a tight fit in order to do the work properly. The one taken out was working loosely, and for that reason plaintiff called his attention to it. In inserting the new key, the loom fixer called upon plaintiff, a weaver, whose loom had thus gotten out of fix, to hold the hammer upon the key while he (Webb) struck upon that hammer with another in order to drive the key into the shaft; and, while so striking, a fragment of steel flew off and struck him in the eye, causing the injury for which he brings this action. Plaintiff's expert witness testified that the key ought to have been driven in by slight taps from the hammer, but it was not. The fact appears that it required heavier blows. But, as plaintiff was not injured by the key, he cannot maintain his contention that he was injured by its defective formation or excessive size. But he says he was injured by a piece of steel from the face of the hammer. Well then, if defendant furnished its employés with tools known to it to be defective, or by ordinary care and inspection could have known of such defects, and the injury was caused directly by reason of such defects, then there would have been evidence of negligence to be submitted to the jury. But was there any apparent defect in the hammer? Or was there a defect known to defendant or its agent? Or was the hammer used in a negligent, careless or unworkman like manner? If such state of facts existed, the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to prove it. There is no complication about a hammer. It is not a piece of machinery which requires any attention whatsoever to keep in order. It cannot get "out of fix," unless the handle breaks. It requires neither art, science, nor skill in its use. Brawn and muscle do the work. And it is known to be one of the most harmless of all tools to the person using it. Should a flaw or other patent defect exist, it would more certainly appear to the person undertaking to work with it whose duty it would be to make it known to his employer. Should a latent defect exist, it could not be known, by the closest inspection, either to employer or employé; and for injury on that account legal responsibility would rest upon no one, and would be the misfortune of the sufferer. Whether properly tempered can only be ascertained by its use, and not by inspection. Whether the dents were made by the use at the time of the injury, or resulted from long and violent service, does not appear; nor do they seem to have been discovered until after the injury occurred. Surely, it cannot be seriously contended that every employer is responsible for injuries occurring from improperly tempered axes, hoes, scythes, trace chains, lap links, bridle bits, etc., the imperfections of which could not be known till used, or for defective whiffletrees, ax helves, hoe helves, handspikes, plow lines, and such like, the defects of which would be first discovered by the party using them, unless the employer is shown to have had knowledge of such defects. If such be the rule of law, then the...
To continue reading
Request your trial