Thomason v. Victor Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1913
• Parties: THOMASON v. VICTOR MFG. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

78 S.E. 895

95 S.C. 239

THOMASON v. VICTOR MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 14, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; T. S Sease, Judge.

Action by Melvin E. Thomason against the Victor Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, and Bomar & Osborne, of Spartanburg, for appellant. C. P. Sims and Sanders & De Pass all of Spartanburg, for respondent.

WATTS J.

This was an action for damages (compensatory and punitive) by respondent against appellant for an injury sustained by the respondent while in the employ of the appellant. The answer of appellant was a denial of the material allegations of the complaint, and set up the plea of contributory negligence and assumption of risk on the part of plaintiff respondent. The case was tried before Judge Sease and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff respondent, in the sum of $550. The appellant appeals, and alleges error on the part of his honor in eight exceptions.

The first three exceptions allege error on the part of his honor in not granting a nonsuit at the close of plaintiff's testimony. In the consideration of this question this court will consider all of the testimony in the case, and from the evidence in the case, we see no error on the part of his honor in refusing to grant the nonsuit. There is no question but that it is the duty of the master to furnish the servant a reasonably safe place within which to work, and keep the place within reasonable repair. There was abundance of evidence to go to the jury to be determined by them whether the place, at which plaintiff was injured, was unsafe, and these exceptions are overruled.

The fourth and fifth exceptions allege error in not directing a verdict for the defendant on the ground there was no evidence of willfulness or wantonness, and also on the whole case. There was sufficient testimony to carry the case to the jury on the question of negligence, and his honor committed no error in this; he should, however, have sustained the motion that there was no evidence to sustain the contention that there was willfulness and wantonness, but this was harmless and not at all prejudicial to the defendant, for in his charge to the jury later he said to them, "Negligence is inadvertence. Now, on the contrary, as a contrast--but with that you have nothing to do in the consideration of this case--willfulness is advertence. Nobody claims in this case that there is any willfulness"; and throughout his whole charge he nowhere told the jury, in estimating damages, that they could award punitive damages for willfulness or wantonness, but was careful to charge them that in estimating damages they were to consider the question of negligence on the part of defendant, and contributory negligence and assumption of risk on the part of plaintiff. These exceptions are overruled.

The sixth exception alleges error in his honor's charge to the jury. We see no error as complained of. It is the duty of the master to furnish a reasonably...