Smith v. Southern Ry.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Ernest Gary, J., York. Action by Henry D. Smith against Southern Railway Company and Southern Railway — Carolina Division. Plaintiff appeals. cites: Whether plaintiff was acting zvithin the scope of his employment was for the jury: 37 S. C. 194; 3 S. C. 8; 67 S. C. 391; 58 S. C. 143. Was Douglas acting within his duties? 3 S. C. 8; 67 S. C. 391; 77 S. C. 549; 37 S. C. 377; 65 S. C. 75; 69 S. C. 413; 76 S. C. 211; 58 S. C. 143; 67 S. C. 395; 38 Am.
Read the full summary
Before Ernest Gary, J., York. Action by Henry D. Smith against Southern Railway Company and Southern Railway — Carolina Division. Plaintiff appeals. cites: Whether plaintiff was acting zvithin the scope of his employment was for the jury: 37 S. C. 194; 3 S. C. 8; 67 S. C. 391; 58 S. C. 143. Was Douglas acting within his duties? 3 S. C. 8; 67 S. C. 391; 77 S. C. 549; 37 S. C. 377; 65 S. C. 75; 69 S. C. 413; 76 S. C. 211; 58 S. C. 143; 67 S. C. 395; 38 Am. St. R. 366; 82 S. C. 547; Elliott 2057; Thomp. on Neg. 3748; 27 L. R. A. 161; 3 Am. St. R. 222; 10 Am. R. 361; 27 Am. St. R. 224; Cool, on…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydricic.
This is an appeal from an order of nonsuit in an action for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff, who, at the time he was injured,' was a track foreman in the service of the defendant, Southern Railway Company.
While plaintiff was at work on his section, Mr. Douglas, who was also in the service of said defendant, as supervisor of bridges and buildings, came along in a railroad motor car, and, after some conversation with plaintiff, Douglas asked him to get in the car and go to Rock Hill with him. Plaintiff declined…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- C. E. Rippy & Co. v. Southern Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. Southern Railway-Carolina DivisionSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913