Myers v. Concord Lumber Co
| Decision Date | 19 November 1901 |
| Parties | MYERS. v. CONCORD LUMBER CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
MASTER AND SERVANT—PERSONAL INJURIES —SAFE APPLIANCES AND MACHINERY— EVIDENCE—SUBSEQUENT REPAIR.
1. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, it was not error to instruct that if defendant unnecessarily and dangerously permitted shavings to accumulate in a passageway, and plaintiff in obedience to orders was compelled to pass near them, and they caused him to fall and injure himself, that would constitute negligence.
2. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, it was not error to instruct that if the rip saw and molding machine were dangerously close, and that in order to comply with orders the plaintiff was compelled to pass between them with a load in his arms, and the company had permitted the regular passageway to become filled up, and failed to provide another, such acts would constitute negligence on the part of the defendant.
3. In an action by a fervent for personal injuries, it was not error to instruct that if the jury found that a counter shaft or loose pulley, or a covering for the saw running naked, was a proper and reasonable safeguard for its employes, and defendant failed to provide it, that was negligence.
4. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, in which a part of the negligence alleged was the location of certain machinery, evidence of its removal by defendant subsequent to the injury complained of was erroneous.
Appeal from superior court, Cabarrus county; Brown, Judge.
Action by C. A. Myers against the Concord Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
W. G. Means and Jones & Tillett for appellant.
Montgomery & Crowell, for appellee.
An employer owes to his employe the duty to be reasonably careful to provide sound and safe appliances and machinery, and also to see that the place prepared for him, in which he is to do his work, and the ways provided for getting to and from it, be reasonably safe. Chesson v. Lumber Co., 118 N. C. 59, 23 S. E. 925. The plaintiff, a servant of the defendant, complains that the defendant neglected and failed to use such care and forethought as a reasonably prudent man would have done under the circumstances at the time of Ms injury by the defendant's machinery.
The defendant excepted to the following instructions given to the jury: "If you find the facts to be that the defendant unnecessarily and dangerously permitted shavings to accumulate in the passageway near the molder, and that the plaintiff, in obedience to the superintendent's orders, was compelled to pass near them, and that they caused him to fall and slip and cut himself, that would be negligence, and you should answer the first issue, 'Yes.' " "If you find the facts to be that the rip saw...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mintz v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...v. Erwin Cotton Mills Co., 150 N.C. 493, 64 S.E. 428; Aiken v. Rhodhiss Manufacturing Co., 146 N.C. 324, 59 S.E. 696; Myers v. Concord Lumber Co., 129 N.C. 252, 39 S.E. 960; Lowe v. Elliott, 109 N.C. 581, 14 S.E. 51. The record reveals, however, that the testimony was not presented or recei......
-
Shaw v. North Carolina Pub. Serv. Corp.
...appliance, as substantive evidence of negligence, under the rule stated in Lowe v. Elliott, 109 N. C. 581, 14 S. E. 51; Myers v. Lumber Co., 129 N. C. 254, 39 S. E. 960; Aiken v. Manufacturing Co., 146 N. C. 328, 59 S. E. 696. The evidence of the declaration of Scott was competent for the s......
-
Shelton v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... certain circumstances at the time of the injury. Myers v ... Concord Lumber Co., 129 N.C. 252, 39 S.E. 960; ... Blevins v. Erwin Cotton Mills Co., 150 ... ...
-
Muse v. Ford Motor Co.
... ... v. Daly, 68 N.Y. 547. The case of Lowe v. Elliott was ... approved in Myers v. Lumber Co., 129 N.C. 252, 39 ... S.E. 960; Aiken v. Manufacturing Co., 146 N.C. 324, ... 59 ... ...