Case Name: E. C. RUMBLEY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1910-11-17
Citations: 153 N.C. 457
Docket Number: 
Parties: E. C. RUMBLEY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 153
Pages: 457–458

Head Matter:
E. C. RUMBLEY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
(Filed 17 November, 1910.)
Negligence — Unskilled Employment — Nonsuit.
Plaintiff, a carpenter, received tbe injury complained of while taking down an old sbed for tbe defendant company wbicb be and another bad been directed to do. They bad been engaged in this work several days when plaintiff was injured in knocking tbe rafters loose while standing on tbe joist of tbe sbed, wbicb latter gave way, causing him to fall to tbe ground to bis injury. Tbe work was simple in its performance, well within plaintiff’s experience and training, and be was left to do it in bis own way. BeM, upon the facts in evidence no breach of defendant’s duty was shown, and a motion to nonsuit should have been allowed.
Appeal from Lyon, J., at tbe May Term, 1910, of AlamaNOe.
Civil action to recover damages for physical injury caused by alleged negligence on tbe part of defendant company. In apt time there were motions of nonsuit, under tbe statute, overruled and defendant excepted. Tbe jury rendered tbe following verdict :
1. "Was tbe plaintiff injured by negligence of tbe defendant as alleged in tbe complaint? A. Yes.
2. Did the plaintiff contribute to bis injury by bis own negligence? A. No.
3. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? A. $700.
Judgment on the verdict and defendant excepted and appealed.
J. A. Barringer for plaintiff.
Parlcer & Parlcer and W. B. Rodman for defendant.

Opinion:
Hoike, J.
We fail to perceive any ground upon which this recovery can be sustained. The evidence tended to show that on 23 June, 1908, plaintiff and another carpenter were directed to tear down an old shed, near the Salisbury depot and had been engaged on the work several days, and on the day in question they were knocking the rafters loose and standing on one of the joists of the shed, which were placed horizontally beneath, at intervals of two or three feet. While plaintiff was standing on one of these joists, knocking loose the rafters above, it gave way and he fell to the ground, causing the injury complained of. The cause of the joist giving way is not very definitely described, but it seems to have been insecurely fastened at the ends. The work that plaintiff was given to do was simple in operation, well within his experience and training, and he was left to select his own methods of doing it. On the facts in evidence, there has been no breach of legal duty established on the part of defendant company and under several recent decisions of this Court, the motion for nonsuit should have been allowed. House v. R. R., 152 N. C., p. 398; Brookshire v. Electric Co., 152 N. C., p. 669; Dunn v. R. R., 151 N. C., p. 313.
Reversed.