Simpson v. Southern Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 14 December 1910
• Citation: 69 S.E. 683,154 N.C. 51
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: SIMPSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

69 S.E. 683

154 N.C. 51

SIMPSON

v.SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 14, 1910.

1. Master and Servant (§ 276^*)—Injuries to Servant — Actions — Evidence — Accident.

In an action by an employe against a railroad company for injuries caused by ties falling on his foot, while he and others were piling them on a car, evidence held to show that the injury was the result of an accident.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 276.*]

2. Negligence (§ 63*)—"Accident."

An "accident" is an event resulting from an unknown cause, or an unusual and unexpected event from a known cause; chance; casualty.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 80, 81; Dec. Dig. § 63.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 1, pp. 62-70; vol. 8, p. 7560.]

3. Negligence (§ 63*)—Actions — Defense-Accident.

When an injury results from an event taking place without one's foresight or expectation or an event which proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause, and therefore not anticipated, the sufferer is without legal remedy.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. §§ 80, 81; Dec. Dig. § 63.*]

4. Master and Servant (§ 107*)—Injury to Servant — Safe Place to Work — Care Required of Master — Ordinary Conditions.

The duty of a master to provide for his employe a reasonably safe place to work does not extend to ordinary conditions which arise during the progress of the work, where the employe can see and understand the dangers and avoid them by the exercise of reasonable care; therefore a railroad company is not liable for injuries received by a servant while piling ties, where the servant and others were doing this work in their own way, and there was nothing to indicate that the work was inherently dangerous, or likely to result in injury to any one, if carefully done.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 199-202, 212, 254, 255; Dec. Dig. § 107.*]

5. Master and Servant (§ 219*)—Injury to Servant—Safe Place to Work—Obvious Dangers.

Where an employe of a railroad company was injured by ties falling on his foot while he and others were piling them on a car without any particular directions from the employer, the principle that a master is not bound to guard the servant against obvious danger applies.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent Dig. §§ 610-624; Dec. Dig. § 2X9.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Rutherford County; Webb, Judge.

Action by Jesse Simpson against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Solomon Gallert and W. B. Rodman, for appellant.

WALKER, J. This action was brought to recover damages for an injury to the plain tiff alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. Plaintiff and two other employes had been engaged in loading a flat car, which was attached to a "material or work train, " with ties taken from an abandoned section of the defendant's road. The ties were piled at each end of the car and toward the middle, where a vacant space was left. The train was moved out and onto the main track, where the hands were ordered to level the ties by placing some of them in the middle of the car. The plaintiff and the two other hands who assisted him got upon the car, the plaintiff standing between the two piles of ties, and the others on either side of one of the piles. While they were moving the ties, one or two of them fell from the pile and injured the plaintiffs foot. It does not appear with any degree of certainty what caused the ties to fall, unless it was insufficient support or accidental jostling. If they had been carelessly placed upon the car, the plaintiff was as much responsible for their condition as the other hands, but the evidence does not justify the imputation of negligence to any of them in the manner of doing the work. For all that does appear, it was just one of those accidents which sometimes occur without our being able to ascribe it to any particular cause. It would seem to come within the definition of an accident, which is "an event resulting from an unknown cause, or an unusual and unexpected event from a known cause; chance; casualty." Crutch-field v. Railroad, 76 N. C. 322, and, as we said in Martin v. Manufacturing Co., 128 N. C. 264, 38 S. E. 876, 83 Am. St. Rep. 671, when an injury results from an event taking place without one's foresight or expectation, or an event which proceeds from an unknown cause, or is an unusual effect of a known cause, and therefore not anticipated, the consequences must be borne by the unfortunate sufferer, who is without legal remedy in such a case. Our reading and study of the evidence, as set forth in the record, does not disclose any act of negligence on the part of the defendant. If there was any negligence at all, it could better be imputed to the plaintiff in taking his position on the car between the two piles of cross-ties, if it was a dangerous one, than to any one else. The hands did the work assigned to them in their own way and without any special instruction as to the manner of doing it, and there is nothing to indicate that it was of such a character as to be inherently dangerous or likely to result in injury to any one, if carefully...