Lasure v. Graniteville Manufacturing Co.

Citations

• 18 S.C. 275
• 1882 S.C. LEXIS 132

Syllabus

<p>1. After verdict in favor of plaintiff, alleged errors of the Circuit judge, in his charge to the jury, either of omission or commission, relating solely to the right of recovery and not affecting the measure of damages, are immaterial to plaintiff, and will not he considered on his appeal.</p> <p>2. In action against a corporation for damages sustained by plaintiff while in their employment, the Circuit judge did not err in refusing to charge the jury “that even if the jury find there was a defect in the tramway known to the company, yet, if they find that the plaintiff also knew of said defect, or by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence could have known of it, and still voluntarily continued in the employment of the company, he cannot recover,” for these are questions of fact to be determined by the jury under all the circumstances of each particular case.</p> <p>3. The exercise of due care and diligence in ascertaining whether-machinery or other appliances furnished an employe to work with, are kept in proper-repair, is the duty of the master and not of the servant.</p> <p>4. A master must provide his servants with safe and suitable machinery and appliances necessary for their work, and must also keep them in repair, and is liable to those servants for injuries resulting to them from his negligence in these matters, or for the negligence of mechanics or other subordinates employed by him to perform these, his duties.</p> <p>5. Gunter v. Graniteville Manufacturing Company, ante p. 262, approved.</p>