Rodgerson v. Houtz

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HOKE, J.
• Citation: Rodgerson v. Houtz, 93 S.E. 376, 174 N.C. 27 (N.C. 1917)
• Decision Date: 12 September 1917
• Docket Number: 14.
• Parties: RODGERSON v. HOUTZ.

93 S.E. 376

174 N.C. 27

RODGERSON v. HOUTZ.

No. 14.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 12, 1917

Appeal from Superior Court, Pasquotank County; Justice, Judge.

Action by J. A. Rodgerson against A. B. Houtz, trading as the Southern Roller, Stave & Heading Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

In action for injuries received by servant claimed to have resulted from defective cant hook which foreman assured servant was sufficient, question of master's negligence held for jury.

The action was to recover damages for physical injuries received by plaintiff, an employé of defendant, while engaged in loading logs onto cars and by reason of alleged negligence of defendant in not supplying plaintiff with a cant hook, fit and proper for the purpose. At the close of plaintiff's evidence, on motion, there was judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.

E. L Sawyer and J. B. Leigh, both of Elizabeth City, for appellant.

Meekins & McMullan, of Elizabeth City, for appellee.

HOKE J.

The testimony introduced by plaintiff tending to support his claim is set forth in the record as follows:

"Plaintiff testified that he thought Evans knew more about the cant hook than he did, and went to work with it because Evans said it was all right; plaintiff had been working there a week or two and had worked very little with cant hooks, and did not know much about them; about half an hour after he began work unloading logs, where Evans had directed him to work; that in rolling a log from the flat car the handle of the cant hook broke and threw him off the flat car about five or six feet, and he fell backward headfirst, and hit his shoulder on the end of a log, and sustained serious and painful injury; that he was confined to his home several days on account of the injury; that it was very painful and that he has not been able to do any heavy work since; that if he worked with the injured side during the day it pained him so he could not sleep at night; and that this condition continues to the present time."

Percy Davis, witness for plaintiff, testified:

"That plaintiff and he went to foreman, Evans, for orders, and that foreman put them to work unloading logs from flat cars; that said foreman handed each of them a cant hook, and that plaintiff said the cant hooks were not worth a cuss, and that Evans said go on, the cant hooks would hold more than he could pull; that he saw no other cant hooks on the premises other than the two he and plaintiff had; that in a short time after they began to roll logs off the car the handle of plaintiff's cant hook broke, and he fell backwards off the flat car, and the back of his shoulder hit the end of a log; that he fell some five or six feet; that he laid on ground some five minutes before he got up. When he went off he was holding his arm, and his actions indicated that he was suffering great pain."

Considering this evidence as correctly portraying the facts of the occurrence, and we are required so to consider it on a judgment of this character, we are of opinion that the order of nonsuit is erroneous, and the cause must be referred to the jury.

In the recent case of Wright v. Thompson, 171 N.C. 88, 87 S.E. 963, while recognizing the position that the rule requiring an employer of labor, in the exercise of reasonable care, to provide his employés with a safe place to work and furnish him tools safe and suitable for the purpose, was not "so stringent in the case of ordinary everyday tools and ordinary everyday conditions, requiring no special care preparation, or provision," the court held that an employer was not relieved of all obligation and responsibility in reference to such tools, and, further, that when there was negligence in supplying tools of that character or keeping them in order, and the defect was of a kind that reasonably imported menace of substantial physical injury, and the same was known to the employer, or, if it should have been ascertained by him, under the rules of inspection applicable to such cases and having due regard to the nature of the defect and the use to which it was being put and all the attendant circumstances, liability might attach. In the case referred to the employé, engaged in holding a steel drift pin while another struck it with a sledge hammer, had his eye put out by a chip of steel flying from the head of the pin. ...