Ghaner v. Leaphart Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before DantzlER, J., Lexington, February term, 1909. Action by FEaskell Ghaner by Guardian against Leaphart Lumber Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Negligence should not be shown by subsequent precautions: 51 S. C., 222. Infant is presumed incapable of contributory negligence and assumption of risks, but the presumption is 'rebuttable: 25 S. C., 24; 27 S. C., 456; 16 S. C., 543; 80 S. C., 351; 83 S. C., 17, 19; 15 Wall., 401. Test of capacity: 17…
Read the full summary
Before DantzlER, J., Lexington, February term, 1909. Action by FEaskell Ghaner by Guardian against Leaphart Lumber Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Negligence should not be shown by subsequent precautions: 51 S. C., 222. Infant is presumed incapable of contributory negligence and assumption of risks, but the presumption is 'rebuttable: 25 S. C., 24; 27 S. C., 456; 16 S. C., 543; 80 S. C., 351; 83 S. C., 17, 19; 15 Wall., 401. Test of capacity: 17 Wall., 657; 12 N. Y. St. R., 88; 2 W. R., 198; 47 Pa. St., 300; 95 Tenn., 458; 90 Wis., 635; 40 Mich., 420; 33 L. R. A.,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action for damages, alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, through the wrongful acts of the defendant.
The allegations of the complaint, material to the questions presented by the exceptions, are as follows:
“That the plaintiff is an infant, of the age of thirteen years.
“That prior to, and up to the third day of Junie, 1908, he was employed by the defendant, in and around its saw mill, to remove from the edging saw, and the butting saw (being parts of machinery of said mill), the strips and other material, as they…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tucker v. Buffalo Cotton MillsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907
- Goodwin v. Columbia Mills Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Davis v. WadfordCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1922