Owings v. Moneynick Oil Mill

• Decision Date: 10 July 1899
• Citation: 33 S.E. 511,55 S.C. 483
• Parties: OWINGS v. MONEYNICK OIL MILL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

33 S.E. 511

55 S.C. 483

OWINGS v. MONEYNICK OIL MILL.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 10, 1899

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Anderson county; J. C Klugh, Judge.

Action by John K. Owings against Moneynick Oil Mill for damages sustained from a personal injury. There was a judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The following is the complaint in the case: "The complaint of the plaintiff respectfully shows: (1) That the defendant is a corporation duly chartered under and by the laws of the state of South Carolina, having its principal place of business at Pelzer, S.C. (2) That on or about the 11th day of November, 1897, the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant at Pelzer, S. C., as a laborer. (3) That on the same day plaintiff was ordered and directed by defendant to go upon the roof of a building which it was having erected as a boiler room to its engine room of its mill, and assist in the work there going on. (4) That there passed over the roof upon which plaintiff was thus sent, and where he went, and went to work, an electric wire, a fact well known to defendant, which said wire was heavily charged with electricity, and, being so charged as aforesaid, was a deadly and dangerous agent, and was elevated over the roof, where plaintiff had gone in obedience to defendant's order only about three feet, and hence was dangerous to those engaged at work on the roof of said house. (5) That plaintiff had never before that time done any work on the roof of that building, and was wholly unaware of the dangerous nature of the employment, and yet he was suddenly called and ordered to that place on this roof, under this deadly wire charged with electricity, as aforesaid, of one of the workmen who had cut himself with one of the tools, and yet neither the defendant its officers, agents, or employés, gave plaintiff any notice of the dangerous nature of the work he was thus given to do, by reason of the presence of the electric wire so as aforesaid charged with electricity, a known deadly agency. But defendant, negligent of its duty to plaintiff as its employé, ordered him to go upon said roof, regardless of, and indifferent to, the danger which he incurred from the proximity of the electric wire so charged with electricity, and neglected to inform him of the danger which he incurred therefrom. (6) That while performing the labor on the roof which he had been sent to do by the defendant, the plaintiff came in contact with the live electric wire, charged with electricity as aforesaid, whereby he was grievously burned, bruised, and injured, the wounds upon his neck being of so deep and dangerous a character as to threaten his life, and the jugular vein was nearly severed, and his voice is permanently injured, and he suffered other deep and dangerous wounds on his arm and hand, all of which have inflicted upon him injuries from which he will never recover and be strong again to do manual labor, upon which he depended for his support; and he further alleges that he suffered great pain and distress, and was put to heavy expense and loss of time, amounting to one thousand dollars. (7) That by reason of the terrible wounds, bruises, and burns thus inflicted upon plaintiff by the negligence of defendant in failing to warn him of the dangerous nature of the work he was given to do by reason of said electric wire, charged with electricity as aforesaid, being in such dangerous proximity to the roof upon which plaintiff was set to work, plaintiff has suffered permanent and lasting injury to his person and health in the sum of ten thousand dollars. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for the sum of ten thousand dollars and the costs of this action."

Smythe, Lee & Frost and Haynsworth, Parker & Mauldin, for appellant.

Bonham & Watkins and Tribble & Prince, for respondent.

McIVER C.J.

This action was brought to recover damages for certain injuries received by plaintiff through the alleged negligence of the defendant, a corporation chartered under the laws of this state. The complaint sets forth the facts upon which plaintiff relies to support his action, a copy of which should be incorporated by the reporter in his report of the case. The defendant was engaged in the construction of the buildings and other structures necessary to carry on the operations in which it was about to engage, and for this purpose had employed the plaintiff, as a carpenter, to assist in such work. On the day on which the disaster occurred, the plaintiff was working in the boiler room, when he was sent up on the roof, to take the place of a man who had cut his hand with directions to assist in putting in a skylight, about 9 o'clock in the morning. Soon after he had got upon the roof, and while engaged in handing down to the man who had cut...