Wade v. McLean Contracting Co.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1908 |
| Citation | 62 S.E. 919,149 N.C. 177 |
| Parties | WADE v. McLEAN CONTRACTING CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Carteret County; W. R. Allen, Judge.
Action by Eugene H. Wade, by his next friend, against the McLean Contracting Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Where plaintiff was injured by the concurrent negligence of a vice principal in giving an order and of a fellow servant in executing it, an instruction that, if plaintiff was injured by the misconduct of a co-employee, he could not recover, was properly refused.
The remainder of the paragraph of the answer containing the admission mentioned in the opinion simply denied the other allegations of the paragraph of the complaint which it answered.
There was evidence to show that plaintiff, 19 years of age employed chiefly to keep the books of defendant company, and do other work, was called upon by Mr. Crow, who was directing the work at the time for defendant company, to assist in raising a pile driver, and this by working some jackscrews, a few feet apart, and placed under two heavy pieces of timber 24 feet in length, one end of the pieces being a foot or so under the object and the other ends being raised something like 10 feet from the ground. There was further testimony tending to show that said Crow stood towards plaintiff and other hands there employed as vice principal of defendant company, and that he was present at the time, exercising personal supervision of the work, and giving immediate directions concerning it; that the jackscrews were improperly placed and timber insecurely fastened, and that, by reason of these facts and of an ill-considered and negligent order on the part of Crow, one of the pieces of timber became loose the elevated end, swinging around, striking plaintiff and inflicting the injuries complained of. In the presentation of plaintiff's case he was allowed, over defendant's objection, to put in a clause from defendant's answer by way of admission, to the effect "that plaintiff in discharge of the duties of his employment, under the direction of J. M. Crow, foreman, was working with one Charles Bennet"; the exception being made on the ground "that a part of the section could not be admitted without the whole."
On issues submitted the jury rendered the following verdict:
There was judgment on the verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.
Moore & Dunn, for appellant.
Simmons, Ward & Allen and D. L. Ward, for appellee.
In Sawyer v. Railroad, 145 N.C. 24, 58 S.E. 598, the approved rule in reference to the admission of excerpts from...
To continue reading
Request your trial