Lloyd v. P. H. Hanes & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Ctvxl ActioN for damages for personal injury alleged to bare been occasioned by the negligence of'defendant in permitting a saw used in their factory to remain without guard or screen, or safety appliance used on such machinery, to* prevent injury to operatives, tried before Robinson, J\, at February Term, 1900, of Eoesyti-i Superior Court. The defendant denied all negligence on their part, and attributed plaintiff’s injury to his own carelessness.
Read the full summary
Ctvxl ActioN for damages for personal injury alleged to bare been occasioned by the negligence of'defendant in permitting a saw used in their factory to remain without guard or screen, or safety appliance used on such machinery, to* prevent injury to operatives, tried before Robinson, J\, at February Term, 1900, of Eoesyti-i Superior Court. The defendant denied all negligence on their part, and attributed plaintiff’s injury to his own carelessness. The plaintiff was the only witness examined. Tie testified: “I am forty-two years old, and have been box-maker for ten or twelve years. In 1899 I…
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
We can not agree with the defendant’s counsel that if an employee operates' a machine which is lacking in safety appliances which have come into general use, that this is an “assumption of risk” which releases the employer from liability. That would be simply to hold that if such appliances are not used the defendant is negligent, but if the pressure of circumstances forces some rmfosrtunate man to accept service with such machine it releases the employer. This negatives tire liability of the employer by the very fact of his negligence, and that as to the class most needing protection, those…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Cox v. Norfolk & Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Engel v. . Eureka ClubNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Rittenhouse v. Wilmington Street-Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
- Sims v. . LindsaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
3Cited by47 opinions
- Stewart v. Carpet Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Hicks v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. LongSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.