Willis v. Cherokee Falls Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1905
• Citation: 51 S.E. 538,72 S.C. 126
• Parties: WILLIS v. CHEROKEE FALLS MFG. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

51 S.E. 538

72 S.C. 126

WILLIS v. CHEROKEE FALLS MFG. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 11, 1905

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Cherokee County; F. B Gary, Special Judge.

Action by Otis Fletcher Willis against the Cherokee Falls Manufacturing Company. From judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Butler & Osborne and H. J. Haynsworth, for appellant. Stanyarne Wilson and V. E. De Pass, for respondent.

GARY A. J. (after stating the foregoing facts).

1. The first exception assigns error as follows "(1) In charging the jury that 'the master is responsible for the sufficiency and safety of the surroundings and place where the employé is by him put to work'--it being submitted that by said instruction his honor placed upon the defendant the liability of an insurer of the safety of the surroundings and place of work, whereas the master is liable for the want of safety in such place only in case this condition is by reason of his negligence." The charge set out in the exception was presented in the form of a request, and his honor, the presiding judge, said: "In connection with what I have charged you, I charge you that." It is therefore necessary to see what he had charged relative to this question. He charged that, "when the relation of master and servant exists, the master on his part engages, and it is his duty to furnish, the servant with a reasonably safe place to work, and with safe and suitable appliances for such work and it is his duty to keep those appliances in repair. Now, that does not mean necessarily that he is an insurer of the safety of the party, but it means that he has such appliances and such place to work as a man of ordinary prudence would have furnished under like circumstances. *** The test being, at last, what would an ordinarily prudent man have done under the circumstances? what kind of place would a prudent man have furnished? what kind of appliances would a prudent man have furnished? As I say, in ascertaining whether or not the master has carried out his part of the implied agreement, you have a right to consider all these questions; that is, the surrounding circumstances, the character of the work, and the youth and intelligence of the servant." The only error assigned by the exception is that the charge therein mentioned placed upon the defendant the liability of an insurer of the safety of the surroundings and place of work. This charge...