Couch v. Charlotte, Columbia & Augusta R. R.

Citations

• 22 S.C. 557
• 1885 S.C. LEXIS 51

Syllabus

<p>1. A Circuit judge, having refused defendant’s motion for non-suit, may afterwards, during the trial with the facts unchanged, order a non-suit of his own motion.</p> <p>2. Where the judge, in his discretion, refuses to allow the plaintiff to introduce further testimony after closing, upon motion made both before and after an order of non-suit, he commits no error of law for which the verdict may be set aside.</p> <p>3. In action by a laborer, against a railroad company, to recover damages for injuries received by reason of the negligence of a section master of the road, the position, duties, and powers of such section master having been proved, it was irrelevant and unnecessary to show what was the custom of other section masters in such matters.</p> <p>4. Witnesses who know the position and character of an open water-way across a railroad track, are not therefore competent to state their opinion of the dangerous character of the place, and of the requirement of prudence that notice should be given to one pushing a handcar over it.</p> <p>5. On the question of negligence, it is the right of the trial judge to determine whether there is any evidence to make a prima facie case, and, if not, he may grant a non-suit.</p> <p>6. An employee assumes the risks of his employment; therefore a railroad company is not answerable in damages for the injuries received by one of its section hands, from falling into an open water-way, properly constructed, while pushing a push-car over his section of the road.</p> <p>7. Nor for the failure of the section master to give to this laborer, working on the road under him, special notice of the approach of the push-ear to this water-way.</p> <p>8. It seems that a section master is a representative of the company, to the extent to which he discharges the duties of his master, the company, and not a fellow-laborer with the hands working under his orders.</p>