Brandon v. Ottaray Cotton Mills
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Smith, J., Union, February, 1915. Action by J. H. Brandon against Ottaray Cotton Mills. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Before Smith, J., Union, February, 1915. Action by J. H. Brandon against Ottaray Cotton Mills. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. The former cite: As to duty to warn: 55 S. C. 483; 80 S. C. 351; 3 Labatt M. & S. (2 ed.) 1066; 4 lb. 1516. Assumption of risk: 86 S. C. 69; 89 S. C. 502. Negligence in requiring machinery oiled while in motion: 92 S. C. 249; 68 S. C. 55; 84 S. C. 364; 85 S. C. 372; >2 S. C. 102. Assumption of risks: 77 S. C. 69; 80 S. C. 360; 74 S. C. 18; 72 S. C. 34; 80 S. C. 239; 86 S. C. 69; 80 S. C. 567; 75 S. C. 150. Duty to warn: 76 S. C. 452; 86 S. C. 116; 80…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief 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 involved, are as follows :
“That on or about the 10th day of February, A. D. 1910, the plaintiff was in the service of the defendant, as an employee working as an oiler in its card room; that while in the discharge of his duty on said day, his left hand was caught in the machinery, and was so badly torn and broken thereby, that his ring finger had to…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rourk v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1918