Register v. Tidewater Power Co
| Decision Date | 01 April 1914 |
| Parties | REGISTER. v. TIDEWATER POWER CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
1. Appeal and Ebeob (§§ 725, 728*)-Questions Reviewable — Assignments of Er1 bob.
Assignments of error that the couit erred in allowing a motion of defendant to strike out certain portions of the complaint as set forth in the first exception, and that the court refused to admit certain testimony as set forth in the second exception, must be disregarded.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3002-3005, 3010-3012; Dec. Dig. §§ 725, 728.*]
2. Appeal and Ebeob (§ 729*)—Questions Reviewable—Assignments of Error.
An assignment of error that the court erred in sustaining the motion to nonsuit is sufficient, and will be considered on appeal.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2998, 3013; Dec. Dig. § 729.*]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 719*)—Questions Reviewable—Assignments of Error.
An objection to the judgment is one to a matter on the face of the record proper, and is deemed excepted to without any assignment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 2968-2982, 3490; Dec. Dig. § 719.*]
4. Master and Servant (§ 213*)—Death of Servant—Assumption of Risk.
Where an experienced electrician was in no danger of injury in removing electric light and power wires from one pole to another if he followed directions and used instrumentalities furnished him for his safety, but he failed to use rubber gloves furnished him, and received a fatal electric shock, which he would not have received had he used the gloves, and he knew that he could work in safety so long as he did not come in contact with wires, he assumed the risk as a matter of law, and there could be no recovery for his death, because of a failure to shut off the current which was not customary.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§'559-564; Dec. Dig. § 213.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; Rountree, Judge.
Action by Martha J. Register, administratrix of James C. Register, against the Tidewater Power Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
William J. Bellamy and John D. Bellamy & Son, all of Wilmington, for appellant.
Davis & Davis and K. O. Burgwin, all of Wilmington, for appellee.
The defendant moves tp dismiss the appeal because the assignment of errors does not set out the exceptions and group them, but simply refers to the exceptions themselves.
The first assignment of error is: "The court erred in allowing the motion of the defendant to strike out certain portions of the complaint as set forth in the first exception." The second assignment of error is: "The refusal of the court to admit certain testimony as set forth in the second exception." The assignments of error 3, 4, 5, and 6 are of like tenor. Porter v. Lumber Co., 164 N. C. 396, 80 S. E. 443.
These assignments give the court no information, and must be disregarded. Keller v. Fiber Co., 157 N. C. 575, 73 S. E. 115; Jones v. Railroad, 153 N. C. 419, 69 S. E. 427; Smith v. Mfg. Co., 151 N. C. 260, 65 S. E 1009; Thompson v. Railroad, 147 N. C. 413, 61 S. E. 286; Lee v. Baird, 146 N. C. 361, 59 S. E. 876. If these were the only assignments of error, the appeal would be dismissed. But the seventh assignment of error is for "sustaining the motion to nonsuit, " which is as full as it can be made, and the eighth assignment is to the judgment, which, being a matter on the face of the record proper, is deemed excepted to without any assignment. Reade v. Street, 122 N. C. 301, 30 S. E 124. The whole case therefore depends upon the correctness of the judgment of nonsuit.
The plaintiff's intestate was one of a gang of men employed by the defendant in removing certain electric light and power wires in Wilmington, N. C, from one pole to another, in the daytime, in June, 1912, on a clear, dry day. While engaged in this work, the plaintiff received an electric shock which killed him.
This action for wrongful death is based entirely upon the fact that the defendant did not shut off its current while the plaintiff's intestate was working on the wires.
The plaintiff's witness Womack testified that it is "not customary, nor is it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Carter v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
-
Pamlico County v. Davis
...if there is any evidence to support the claim for betterments. Allen v. Allen, 244 N.C. 446, 94 S.E.2d 325; Register v. Tidewater Power Co., 165 N.C. 234, 81 S.E. 326. Protection is, by statute, G.S. § 1-340, afforded one who makes permanent improvements to property, believing that he has g......
-
Baker v. Clayton
... ... v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175; Taylor v ... Hayes, 172 N.C. 663, 90 S.E. 801; Register v ... Tidewater Power Co., 165 N.C. 234, 81 S.E. 326 ... The ... following ... ...
-
Kreger v. Baltimore & OR Co.
...Adm'r, 195 Ky. 582, 242 S. W. 599; Junior v. Missouri Electric Light & Power Co., 127 Mo. 79, 29 S. W. 988; Register v. Tidewater Power Co., 165 N. C. 234, 81 S. E. 326. Plaintiff also contends that a new trial must be granted because the court deprived plaintiff's counsel of his common-law......