Watson v. Warsaw Const. Co.
Decision Date | 23 October 1929 |
Docket Number | 618. |
Citation | 150 S.E. 20,197 N.C. 586 |
Parties | WATSON v. WARSAW CONST. CO. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Swain County; McElroy, Judge.
Action by Lee Watson, by his next friend Josie Watson, against the Warsaw Construction Company, for damages for personal injuries caused by explosion of dynamite caps. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
One is not under duty to provide against danger to another which reasonably prudent person would not reasonably have anticipated.
The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages for personal injury alleged to have been caused by the explosion of dynamite caps negligently put into his possession by the defendant.
The defendant is a corporation, and at the time of the injury was engaged in blasting and grading a roadbed for a highway to be built from Hazel Creek in Swain county to the Tennessee line. The plaintiff had been in the employ of the defendant for two or three years, and prior to that time in the service of the defendant's predecessor. When injured he was the defendant's teamster. He was 18 years of age and weighed 90 or 95 pounds. His foreman was A. W. Whaley. His account of the injury follows:
This is his description of the box containing the caps:
Speaking of the caps he said: "I put them down in my pocket, then took them to the shack. I put my hand in my pocket and took them out and put them up. I put up all that he gave me. *** I didn't know I had any dynamite caps in my pocket. From 5 o'clock that evening after I took the dynamite caps and put them up I never had my hand in my right hand pocket till the next day when I got hurt. I could have put my hand in my pocket and found out what I had, but I didn't that I remember. The best I remember I didn't put my hand in there, for if I had I would have found something. When Mr Whaley handed me the box of dynamite caps I didn't notice it, I just put it in my pocket. I glanced over the box and put it in my pocket. I didn't notice anything about it when I glanced over it. That was after I took it out of my pocket that I noticed one corner of the lid was raised. That was in broad daylight. When I took that box out of my pocket and noticed that the lid was pulled up, the foreman was not present and he didn't know anything about it. If the lid was pulled up and some of the caps had slipped out of the box, I never thought anything about it. I just put them up. I just pushed it back down a little. I never though there was any caps in my pocket. I reached my hand in my pocket and then noticed that the lid was slipped up or had come off, but it went back on and I set it up.
Seeing and knowing that, I didn't put my hand in my pocket to see if any of the caps had come out. I never thought about it."
Other witnesses were examined, but the plaintiff's testimony is for him the most favorable. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence and at the conclusion of all the evidence the defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. Each motion was denied, and the defendant excepted.
The issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and damages were answered in favor of the plaintiff, and he was awarded judgment, from which the defendant appealed upon error assigned.
Edwards & Leatherwood, of Bryson City, for appellant.
Sutton & Stillwell, of Sylva, for appellee.
At 5:30 in the afternoon of February 2, 1928, the plaintiff received the dynamite caps from the defendant's foreman and was injured by an explosion in his pocket on the day following at 1:30. The material allegations of negligence, as set forth in the complaint, are the defendant's failure to warn the plaintiff of danger in handling the caps and its failure to provide a safe box or container for their transportation. Let us consider each of these allegations in its relation to the plaintiff's evidence.
As to the first, it is conceded to be the duty of an employer to warn his employees concerning dangers which are known to him or which in the exercise of reasonable care should be known to him, and are unknown to his employees or are undiscoverable by them in the exercise of due care, and concerning dangers which, by reason of youth, inexperience, or incompetency the employees do not appreciate. Under these conditions, unless the servant is warned or instructed, he does not assume the risk of such dangers, and, if without fault or negligence on his part he receives an injury in consequence of not having been wanted or instructed, the master will be liable to him in damages. West v. Tanning Co., 154 N.C. 44, 69 S.E. 687; Norris v. Mills, 154 N.C. 474, 70 S.E. 912; Steeley v. Lumber Co., 165 N.C. 27, 34, 80 S.E. 963.
For the present purpose, we may admit the proposition that, where explosives are given to a messenger for transportation in a package apparently harmless and he has no information or notice of their general character and carries them with the care adapted to their apparent nature, the person delivering the explosives will ordinarily be held liable for injuries resulting from an explosion during the period of transportation. But without saying that the jury may not reasonably have inferred from the evidence that the defendant had been negligent in failing to warn the plaintiff of probable harm, we are confronted with the fact that no injury resulted to the plaintiff during the course of his employment, i. e., during the time he was engaged in obedience to the foreman's orders in carrying the caps from the barn to the shack. His regular service was that of a teamster. The reason of requiring warning in appropriate cases is to impress upon the employee the necessity...
To continue reading
Request your trial