Both of the appealing defendants assign as error the refusal of the court to sustain their motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit made when the plaintiff had introduced her evidence and rested her case and renewed when all of the evidence was in. C. S., 567.
The Southeastern Construction Company was an independent contractor and J. L. Coe was an independent contractor. Hence, Marshall Field & Company was in no wise liable for the negligence of either of them, and was liable only for such of its own negligence, if any, as contributed to the death of the plaintiff’s intestate. It is alleged and there is evidence tending to show that the temporary wires connecting the old substation and transformer with the new power line, carrying 2,300 volts of electricity, were permitted to remain on the premises in an exposed condition, and in such a position as was likely to come in contact with those working on the addition to the sheeting mill, that no warning signs were placed on said temporary wires, and that no warning *700 was given to the intestate of any danger from sucb wires, that the high voltage current was not cut off while the intestate was working in close proximity thereto, that said high voltage wires were not placed at a sufficient elevation to avoid interfering with those working on said addition, and that the defendant failed to complete the new substation and remove the transformer thereto prior to the commencement of the construction of the addition. While the evidence of the defendant conflicts with that of the plaintiff, we think, and so hold, that the latter was sufficient to support the denial of the motion of the defendant Marshall Field & Company for a judgment as in case of nonsuit.
The plaintiff relies upon practically the same allegations and evidence to support the denial of the motion of the Southeastern Construction Company for judgment as in case of nonsuit. However, the two defendants occupied different relationships to the plaintiff’s intestate. Marshall Field & Company was the owner of the land upon which the addition was to be constructed, exercised dominion over it and was required to turn it over in a reasonably safe condition to the Southeastern Construction Company for the construction of the addition, including the removal of the transmission line and substation, and was therefore liable for any negligence in so doing, or negligent failure so to do; but the Southeastern Construction Company did not own the land, did not have any dominion over it except such as arose from being a licensee or an invitee thereon for the purpose of erecting the addition under its contract; it had no> control over the transmission line and the substation, and also had no control over the apparatus used by J. L. Coe, or of the manner and way he proceeded under his independent contract to erect the steel structure, and in the absence of any control of the place and of the work there was a corresponding absence of any liability incident thereto. That authority precedes responsibility, or control is a' prerequisite of liability, is a well recognized principle of law as well as of ethics. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that his Honor erred in refusing to sustain the motion of the Southeastern Construction Company for judgment as in case of nonsuit.
We cannot concur in the contention that the evidence discloses as a matter of law the plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence.
Marshall Field & Company, by exceptions properly preserved to the charge, presents the question of whether his Honor complied with the provisions of C. S., 564. A careful examination of the charge as it relates to the issue addressed to the actionable negligence of Marshall Field & Company (the first issue submitted) discloses that it is made up solely of statements of general principles of law, such as definitions of negligence and of proximate cause, and the contentions of the parties' — •
*701
with, a proper placing of the burden of proof. There is no direct application by the court of the law to the evidence, or to the facts as they may be found to he by the jury from the evidence. This is a noncompliance with the statute,
Spencer v. Brown,
What is said in
Williams v. Coach Co.,
“A statement of the contentions of the parties is not required as a necessary part of the instructions (Wilson v. Wilson, supra; S. v. Whaley,191 N. C., 387 ), but when the evidence is susceptible of several interpretations a failure to give instructions which declare and explain the law in its application to the several phases of the evidence is held for reversible error. Such failure is to be considered, not as a subordinate feature of the cause, but as a substantial defect which may be raised by an exception to the charge. Hauser v. Furniture Co., supra; S. v. Merrick,171 N. C., 788 .”
We are constrained to hold that the omission to apply the law to the evidence or to the facts as they may have been found to be was error prejudicial to Marshall Field & Company.
The result is:
On appeal of Marshall Field & Company a
New trial.
On appeal of the Southeastern Construction Company
Eeversed.