Strait v. City of Rock Hill

• Decision Date: 04 March 1916
• Docket Number: 9310.
• Citation: 88 S.E. 469,104 S.C. 116
• Parties: STRAIT v. CITY OF ROCK HILL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

88 S.E. 469

104 S.C. 116

STRAIT v. CITY OF ROCK HILL.

No. 9310.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 4, 1916

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of York County; C. M. Efird Judge.

Action by Julian L. Strait against the City of Rock Hill. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Dunlap Dunlap & Hollis, of Rock Hill, for appellant.

Wilson & Wilson, of Rock Hill, for respondent.

FRASER J.

The plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant, and his statement of his employment is:

"I was working for the city of Rock Hill in the summer and fall of 1913; was hired by the city or by Mr. Hoke superintendent of streets of Rock Hill. I generally did work whatever he told me to do on the streets and different things; run the steam roller and worked hands on the streets and crusher work. I worked with the crusher about six weeks in all. I was superintending the crusher, the work, overseer of the hands, looking after them, when I got hurt. Mr. Hoke was over me; he was my boss."

The plaintiff's hand was crushed in the crusher. There are quite a number of allegations of negligence, but it is sufficient to say that the plaintiff alleged that the crusher was in bad repair; that it was broken, only a part of the machine was used, and this caused an unnecessary accumulation of rock, which clogged the crusher; this made it necessary for the plaintiff to go up on the machine and take a stick and move the rock; that he was instructed not to stop the machine to unclog it; that much of his time was taken up with unclogging the machine; the plaintiff went up on the machine to unclog it, and when he got it unclogged, a wagon came up for crushed rock and he turned to give directions to the driver and his foot slipped from the place on which he was standing (this was alleged to be an inadequate footrest) and the plaintiff started to fall on the rocks below; that in order to save himself he caught at the machine, and by reason of the reverse motion of the cogwheels his hand and arm were caught and crushed. For this injury the plaintiff brought suit. The judgment was for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.

I. The first question raised by this appeal is as to the liability of a municipality to an employé for negligence. Appellant says:

"The contention of the appellant is that the Legislature did not intend, nor does it in any way give to a person employed by the city any cause of action for an injury by him received; but, on the other hand, it intended to protect the pedestrian."

The authority to bring this action is based upon section 3053, Civil Code, vol. 1, 1912. It is unnecessary to quote the whole section. The statute says: "Any person who shall receive bodily injury or damages," etc. "Any person" includes an employé. If there are defects in the statute, the Legislature, and not the courts, must amend the statute. This exception cannot be sustained.

II. The next question is: Should the presiding judge have granted a nonsuit?

" Second Ground. Did the plaintiff have another safe way in which he could have performed the work he was engaged in at the time of his injury, and did he adopt the dangerous way?" That was a question for the jury. This exception is overruled.

III. "Third Ground. That plaintiff's testimony shows that his own act, combined with an act of God, contributed to his injury." This also was a question for the jury, and there was evidence to...