Roach v. Haile Gold Mining Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Gage, J., Lancaster, Action by Charlie W. Roach against Haile Gold Mining Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Plaintiff assumed the risk of riding on the car, and defendant is not liable: 20 Ency., 2 ed., 125; 55 S. C., 101; 170 U. S., 671; 66 S. C., 485. cites: Master must furnish safe and suitable appliances: 34 S. C., 211; 18 S. C., 262, 275; 52 S. C., 446; 32 S. C., 302; 63 S. C., 576; 61 S. C., 468. Assumption of risk is for jury: 55 S. C.,…
Read the full summary
Before Gage, J., Lancaster, Action by Charlie W. Roach against Haile Gold Mining Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. cite: Plaintiff assumed the risk of riding on the car, and defendant is not liable: 20 Ency., 2 ed., 125; 55 S. C., 101; 170 U. S., 671; 66 S. C., 485. cites: Master must furnish safe and suitable appliances: 34 S. C., 211; 18 S. C., 262, 275; 52 S. C., 446; 32 S. C., 302; 63 S. C., 576; 61 S. C., 468. Assumption of risk is for jury: 55 S. C., 101; 66 S. C., 485; 63 S- C., 576; 53 S. C., 360; 52 S. C., 443; 35 S. C., 405; 60 S. C., 14; 51 S. C., 233; 48 S. C.,…
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 negligence of the defendant in failing to¡ provide suitable and safe appliances. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500. The defendant appealed upon the following exceptions:
“1st. That the presiding Judge erred in refusing defendant’s motion for a nonsuit, the undisputed evidence being such as toi be capable of but one inference, to wit: That the plaintiff knew of the alleged defects in the skip car, tracks and other…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cochrell v. Langley Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Dixon v. Chiquola Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1910
- Waligora v. St. Paul Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908