Watson v. City Of Durham, 771.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 771.,771. |
| Citation | 178 S.E. 218,207 N.C. 624 |
| Parties | WATSON. v. CITY OF DURHAM. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Cranmer, Judge.
Action by Jake Watson against the City of Durham. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Plaintiff was sentenced to the state's prison for a term of years and soon thereafter by virtue of a contract between the city of Durham and the state's prison authorities he was sent to work at a quarry owned and operated by the city of Durham. He had work-in the quarry for approximately four years, and was hurt on the 22d day of September, 1930. Plaintiff testified: "On the 22nd day of September I was breaking rock with a hammer * * * and a piece from that hammer hit me in my right eye and put it out." There was evidence that this hammer was a rock hammer, weighing about eighteen pounds, and that it was "all crumpled and battered and would shoot spraws * * * and fine pieces of rock." Plaintiff further testified that he had asked for goggles to protect his eyes and his request had been denied. He also testified that he had asked for a new hammer and that the same had not been furnished. He offered evidence that goggles were appliances approved and in general use for workmen engaged in breaking rock.
The defendant offered evidence tending to show that goggles were not appliances approved and in general use for the particular work that plaintiff was required to do, and that the hammer furnished had been inspected as required by reasonable prudence, and that said instrument was free from defectsand was a proper appliance for breaking rock.
There was sufficient evidence of negligence to be submitted to the jury and the trial judge submitted issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damages. The jury answered the issue of negligence "No, " and from judgment upon the verdict the plaintiff appealed.
P. R. Hines and Julius Brown, both of Greenville, and R. O. Everett, of Durham, for appellant.
S. C. Chambers, of Durham, for appellee.
The trial judge properly submitted the cause to the jury. He stated and arrayed the contentions of the parties with clearness and impartiality and correctly stated the principles of law applicable to the various phases of the evidence.
The defendant offered one of the guards as a witness, who was present at the time of the injury and was asked what was the condition of the hammer plaintiff was using. He replied: "I would say it was in good condition."
The plaintiff insists that the evidence was incompetent and should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. Deifells, Inc.
...senses at one and the same time, are, legally speaking, matters of fact, and are admissible in evidence * * *. ' Watson v. City of Durham, 207 N.C. 624, 625, 178 S.E. 218, 219, quoting from Bane v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 171 N.C. 328, 88 S.E. 477. See also State v. Harris, 209 N.C. 579......
-
Cook v. Hobbs
...233 N.C. 443, 64 S.E.2d 285; Maddox v. Brown, 232 N.C. 542, 61 S.E.2d 613; King v. Coley, 229 N.C. 258, 49 S.E.2d 648; Watson v. Durham, 207 N.C. 624, 178 S.E. 218; Edwards v. Cleveland Mill & Power Co., 193 N.C. 780, 138 S.E. 131, 53 A.L.R. 1404; Geddie v. Williams, 189 N.C. 333, 127 S.E. ......
- Biggs v. Oxendine
- Biggs v. Oxendine