Raiford v. Wilmington & W. R. Co

• Decision Date: 10 June 1902
• Citation: 130 N.C. 597,41 S.E. 806
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: RAIFORD v. WILMINGTON & W. R. CO.

41 S.E. 806

130 N.C. 597

RAIFORD

v.WILMINGTON & W. R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 1902.

MASTER AND SERVANT—NEGLIGENCE—PERSONAL, INJURY — SAFE PLACE TO

WORK—ACCIDENTAL INJURY. Plaintiff was engaged in removing an engine apron from the bumper of a locomotive in a machine shop, and was some two feet from the track; the bumper extending that distance beyond it. A large piece of iron running crosswise and underneath the bumper was fastened to it by a bolt and nut. Before plaintiff began work, another workman had removed the nut, but had not taken off the piece of iron, which fell while plaintiff was working, and, rebounding from the track, struck plaintiff. Held, that defendant was not negligent in the removal of the nut without also removing the piece of iron.

Appeal from superior court, Wayne county; Allen, Judge.

Action by B. B. Raiford against the Wilmington & Weldon Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

F. A. Daniels and W. C. Munroe, for appellant.

Allen & Dortch, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, J. The plaintiff, when he was hurt, was in the employment of the defendant in its machine shops at Wilmington. He was at work in the act of dismantling an engine which had been injured in a collision. While he was engaged in removing an iron engine apron that covered the engine bumper, a piece of iron, 1 inch thick by 3 inches wide, and 12 or 14 inches in length, running crosswise the bumper, and underneath it, fell to the track below, and, in some unaccountable way, rebounding, struck the plaintiff, who was standing off the track, and at the end of the bumper; the bumper extending 2 feet beyond the rail. The piece of iron was kept in place underneath the bumper by an iron rod extending from the top of the bumper and through the bumper, the rod being fastened underneath the piece of iron by a nut. Just before the plaintiff commenced his work, another employe of the defendant had removed the nut. Upon the refusal of his honor, on the defendant's motion, to dismiss the action at the close of the evidence, the question as to whether there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant is raised. When the nut was unscrewed from the bolt, and the bolt withdrawn, by the first workman, the piece of iron must have been held in place from the time of the withdrawal of the bolt until it fell from some cause produced by the enforced pressure of wood against iron, — probably rust of the iron and indentations of the wood. The negligence alleged by the plaintiff is that the first workman left the piece of iron in the condition it was in after he unscrewed the nut and withdrew the bolt. With that exception, the defendant was not alleged to be at fault. Work or the engine was not attended with risk or danger, and the place where the engine was standing was free from obstructions of any sort; the floor being laid in concrete, and the rails in good condition. The piece of iron, falling perpendicularly, struck the ground four inches within the rail; and the plaintiff was standing on the ground, two feet from the rail, and at the end of the bumper. He said that he had no occasion to work under the bumper, and in fact had not looked under it. Was his hurt an accident, or...