Case Name: LEOPARD v. BEAVER DUCK MILLS
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-08-01
Citations: 117 S.C. 122
Docket Number: 10697
Parties: LEOPARD v. BEAVER DUCK MILLS
Judges: Mr. Cpiiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 117
Pages: 122–137

Head Matter:
10697
LEOPARD v. BEAVER DUCK MILLS
(108 S. E. 190)
1. Master and Servant—Duty to Provide Reasonably Safe Place.— It is the duty of the master to provide the servant a reasonably safe place to work.
2. Master and Servant—Negligence of Employee in Charge for Master Held Question for Jury.—Where a card grinder when employed was directed to another card grinder for assignment to work, and by him told to put a screen in a machine, and while doing so was injured when the other card grinder put the machinery in motion, a verdict was erroneously directed for defendant, as the testimony tended to show that the place of work was rendered dangerous by one in charge for the master, without notice toi plain- • tiff.
Before Prince, J., Greenville, February, 1921.
Reversed.
Action by T. L. Leopard against Beaver Duck Mills. From directed verdict for defendant the plaintiff appeals.
Messrs. Martin & Henry, for appellant,
cite: Plaintiff entitled to benefit of testimony of defendant's witnesses: 110 S. C., 565. Test of who was representative of the master: 107 S. C., 16; 18 S. C., 270; 18 R. C. L., 735, 744; 89 S. C., 507; 95 S. C., 149; 96 S. C., 154; 66 S. C., 485; 55 S. C., 102; 102 S. C., 223. Servant is aw appliance: 63 S. C., 559; 70 S. C., 315; 114 S. C., 349. No- assumption of risk without knowledge: 72 S. C., 420 ; 80 S. C.,. 248; 84 S.C., 283; 99 S. C., 396; 107 S. C., 16. Sufficient inference of negligence to be submitted to the jury: 76 S. C„ 63; 71S. C., 159; 86 S. C.,- 304; 98 S. C., 129; 86 S. C., 231; 74 S. C„ 90; 83 S. C„ 274; 110 S. C„ 566; 69 S. C„ 107; 75 S. C., 156; 94 S. C., 412. Fellow servant mixed question of law and fact: 51 S. C., 96;s 18 R. C. L., 719 Where jury fails to agree: 1 Civ. Code 1912, Sec. 4050;. 54 S. C., 236 .
Messrs. Haynesworth & Haynesworth, for respondent,
cite: Rulings on motions are not charges on facts: 103- S. C., 210; 91 S. C., 161; 82 S. C., 321; 50 S. C., 299; 101 S. C., 360. Fellow servant: 71 S. C., 53; 72 S. C., 237; 76 S. C., 539; 77 S. C, 3-28; 78 S. C., 413; 80 S. C., 232; 87 S. C., 449; 89 S. C., 502. Denial of right of argument must be express, and not acquiesced in to furnish basis of error: 38 Cyc., 1471; 25 Ga., 85; 66 Ga„ 115; 82 Ga„ 156; 8 S. E., 424; 9 So., 311, (Ala.).
August 1, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Eraser.
The plaintiff's testimony tends to show: The plaintiff was employed as a card grinder in the defendant mill. While he was employed as an expert card grinder, he was new in the mill, and was directed by another card grinder, Atkins, for assignment to work. Atkins gave the plaintiff a screen, and told him to set it into the machine. The setting in of the screen ordinarily took about an hour. The screen was very near a very heavy cylinder, covered with teeth to catch the cotton. If the cylinder was still, the work was safe, but if the machinery should be set in motion, it became exceedingly dangerous. When the plaintiff had been working about 15 or 20 minutes, the other card grinder started the cylinder in motion. It caught the plaintiff's hand, and produced the injury complained of. The trial Judge directed a verdict for the defendant. Erom the judgment entered'on a directed verdict this appeal is taken.
There are several exceptions, but one question only need be considered. It is the duty of the master to provide the servant á reasonably safe place to work. There is testimony tending to show that the place at which the plaintiff was put to work was safe enough when he started to work, but rendered very dangerous by one in charge for the master, and this change was made without notice to the plaintiff and caused the injury. Hunter v. Alderman, 89 S. C., 71 S. E., 1084.
"The following rule, stated in Brabham v. Tel. Co., 71 S. C., 53; 50 S. E., 716, has been followed in many cases: Tn determining who are fellow servants, the test or rule 'in this State is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank, or authority, one of them having power to control and direct the services of another, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether it was the performance of some duty which the master owed to' the injured servant, the performance of which duty the master intrusted to the offending servant.' "
It is true that Atkins said he asked the plaintiff to listen for defects, and the plaintiff, instead of doing so, put his hand in the dangerous place. The jury should have been allowed to settle that matter.' The exception that raises this question is sustained.
The other quetsions refer to errors peculiar to the first trial, and need not be considered.
The judgment is reversed.
Mr. Cpiiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.