| N.C. | Mar 14, 1917
Lead Opinion
Tbe plaintiff was an employee of tbe defendant, cutting wood, rafting logs, driving tbe loading borse,. and working on tbe railroad. It was tbe custom, known to tbe-company and employees, tbat tbe men rode to and from tbeir work on defendant’s log train, and a whistle always sounded a short time before tbe engine started to give them notice tbat tbe engine was ready to move.
On this occasion tbe skidder was being jacked up on tbe car by tbe usual method of jacking up, letting tbe car go under it and then lowering tbe skidder down upon tbe car. Tbe plaintiff was assisting in this work when Fred Garner, in charge of tbe skidder, told him to jump up on tbe engine and band him down a cold chisel, and as he turned around to get off, tbe train started and made a bitch, and as plaintiff grasped tbe bracket block it gave way, throwing tbe plaintiff off, and tbe engine ran over bis left foot. Joe Lockie testified tbat be was foreman, but Garner was in charge of tbe skidder; tbat be “was in charge of tbe whole business, but Garner was particularly in charge of tbe skidder.” Tbe plaintiff testified tbat no whistle was sounded or other warning given after be was sent upon tbe engine to get tbe chisel. He also said: “Tbe morning I was hurt I did not have tbat warning of
Tbe defendant demurred in this Court for tbe first time tbat tbe complaint did not state a cause of action, but we cannot sustain tbe demurrer. Tbe exceptions to tbe evidence and tbe charge have been considered, but we do not think they can be sustained, or tbat they need discussion. Tbe case was almost entirely one of fact, and tbe jury have found tbe facts against tbe defendant. Tbe definitions of negligence and of proximate cause were given practically as set out in Pritchett v. R. R., 157 N. C., 102; Mule Co. v. R. R., 160 N. C., 221. The charge as to proximate cause is in accordance with what was said in Ward v. R. R., 161 N. C., 184; Alexander v. Statesville, 165 N. C., 532. Tbe defendant contends "that such charge conflicts with Drum v. Miller, 135 N.C., 204" court="N.C." date_filed="1904-04-26" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/drum-v-miller-6694691?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6694691">135 N. C., 204. But we do not see any conflict between these cases.
Exceptions 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 require no discussion. As to tbe fifth exception, tbe fact tbat tbe plaintiff was an employee and knew tbe dangers incident to operating tbe skidder did not relieve tbe defendant of giving usual notice by blowing tbe whistle. Noble v. Lumber Co., 151 N.C., 78" court="N.C." date_filed="1909-09-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/simms-v--vick-3677652?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3677652">151 N. C., 78, and cases there cited. Exceptions 10 and 11 were to tbe statement of plaintiff’s contentions, and tbe defendant made no exception at tbe time. Tbe court told tbe jury tbat tbe mortuary tables in tbe Revisal were not conclusive, but merely evidential. Sledge v. Lumber Co., 140 N. C., 461.
Exception 12 cannot be sustained, for there is no evidence tbat tbe plaintiff volunteered to band tbe chisel to Garner. Tbe plaintiff testified tbat be was directed by Garner to jump up on tbe engine and get tbe chisel, while tbe defendant’s contention was tbat there was no chisel, and tbat plaintiff was not sent for it. Moreover, if be bad volunteered to help Garner, being a workman under him, this would not have given defendant tbe right to negligently injure him.
There was also a motion in this Court to set aside tbe judgment and verdict on the ground of newly discovered testimony. This Court, in Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C., 374, stated: “This Court will, as a rule, in future grant or refuse such motions without discussing tbe facts embodied in tbe petitions or affidavits, as we cannot see tbat any good will be accomplished by contributing another to tbe volumes tbat have been written upon tbe exercise of legal discretion” in such cases. This has been cited and approved in many cases, especially in Herndon v. R. R., 121 N. C., 499, where tbe Court prescribed tbe practice in such cases
No error.
Lead Opinion
ALLEN, J., dissenting; WALKER, J., concurring in dissent. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant, cutting wood, rafting logs, driving the loading horse, and working on the railroad. It was the custom, known to the company and employees, that the men rode to and from their work on defendant's log train, and a whistle always sounded a short time before the engine started to give them notice that the engine was ready to move.
On this occasion the skidder was being jacked up on the car by the usual method of jacking it up, letting the car go under it and then lowering the skidder down upon the car. The plaintiff was assisting in this work when Fred Garner, in charge of the skidder, told him to jump up on the engine and hand him down a cold chisel, and as he turned around to get off, the train started and made a hitch, and as plaintiff grasped the bracket block it gave way, throwing the plaintiff off, and the engine ran over his left foot. Joe Lockie testified that he was foreman, but Garner was in charge of the skidder; that he "was in charge of the whole business, but Garner was particularly in charge of the skidder." The plaintiff testified that no whistle was sounded or other warning given *182 after he was sent upon the engine to get the chisel. He also said: "The morning I was hurt I did not have that warning of the train (136) starting. It had never failed to give warning. That was the first time it failed to blow at that time, that I know of." He was corroborated by the witness Ed. Jones, and his father and mother, Mr. and Mrs. Odom, testified that foreman Lockie admitted to them soon after the injury that the whistle did not blow. Lockie himself says that it was current among the employees at the time that if the whistle had been blown the plaintiff would not have been hurt.
The defendant demurred in this Court for the first time that the complaint did not state a cause of action, but we cannot sustain the demurrer. The exceptions to the evidence and the charge have been considered, but we do not think they can be sustained, or that they need discussion. The case was almost entirely one of fact, and the jury have found the facts against the defendant. The definitions of negligence and of proximate cause were given practically as set out in Pritchett v. R. R.,
Exceptions 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 require no discussion. As to the fifth exception, the fact that the plaintiff was an employee and knew the dangers incident to operating the skidder did not relieve the defendant of giving usual notice by blowing the whistle. Noble v. Lumber Co.,
Exception 12 cannot be sustained, for there is no evidence that the plaintiff volunteered to hand the chisel to Garner. The plaintiff testified that he was directed by Garner to jump up on the engine and get the chisel, while the defendant's contention was that there was no chisel, and that plaintiff was not sent for it. Moreover, if he had volunteered to help Garner, being a workman under him, this would not have given defendant the right to negligently injure him.
There was also a motion in this Court to set aside the judgment and verdict on the ground of newly discovered testimony. This Court, in Brownv. Mitchell,
No error.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting: I am of opinion there ought to be a new trial on the issue of damages on account of the failure of his honor to restrict the recovery of prospective damages to their present value.
He nowhere told the jury that this was the rule for their guidance, and does not refer to present value, except in one place, when stating the contention of a party, and in this I think there is error. Fry v. R. R., 159 N. C., 362.