Court Opinion

ID: 9811429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:20:14.634202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:53.349781
License: Public Domain

Walkee, J.,
concurring: The facts as now presented are not materially different from those before us on the former appeal. There was then a motion to nonsuit, which was passed by the Supreme Court of the United States without comment. It was hardly necessary to order a new trial for error in the charge if, upon the whole case, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover by reason of the assumption of risk. It is, therefore, to be fairly if not necessarily inferred, from the refusal to nonsuit, that there was, at least, some phase of the evidence that carried the case to the jury. The motion to nonsuit was entitled to first consideration, as if decided favorably to the defendant (plaintiff in error) it fully and finally disposed of the case, and the other questions raised by the assignments of error would, therefore, have become immaterial. But if this were not so, the motion should not now be allowed. It is true that the water gauge was “liable to explode,” but an explosion was not so imminent as to require that Horton should quit the service of defendant, when he had been promised that the glass gauge would be repaired. A prudent man would probably take such a risk, and it was for the jury to say whether he would. He did not continue his work for any unreasonable length of time, but only for a very short- time, and the question of assumption of risk or contributory negligence was eminently a proper one for the jury. Nor can it be said that plaintiff’s failure to use the three gauge cocks on the head of the boiler was negligence, as matter of law. He testified that they could be used and sometimes were used for the purpose of gauging the quantity of water in the boiler or to ascertain its level, but that they are not altogether reliable or accurate, for he said that they would gauge somewhere near the quantity of water, but will not give the perfect level. He stated that an engine can be run without a water-glass and with gauge cocks, if the latter will stay open, but that they are liable to be*116come clogged and are easily stopped up by mud or sediment from the water. To give his language: “Yes, you can operate an engine without a water gauge, and with the gauge, but not as well. You cannot keep these cocks open; they are liable to stop up. But a water-glass has got so -much bigger opening here than the gauge cock. They are the safest thing at all, as they do not stop up like gauge cocks — like all of the gauge cocks I have seen.” He further stated that the mud could not be blown out if the gauge cocks are packed with it. He said much more in regard to this feature of the case, but the aboye references to his testimony are sufficient to demonstrate that the case was one for the jury on the question of assumption of risk or contributory negligence.
A motion to nonsuit, or a request for a peremptory instruction to find for the defendant, requires that the evidence should receive the most favorable construction for the plaintiff, and, under our rule, the evidence only that sustains his cause of action should be considered, because the jury might adopt it and reject all the unfavorable testimony. “It is well settled that, on a motion to nonsuit or to dismiss under the statute, which is like a demurrer to evidence, the court is not permitted to pass upon the weight of the evidence, but the evidence must be accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and every fact which it tends to prove must be taken as established, as the jury, if the case had been submitted to them, might have found .those facts upon the testimony.” Brittain v. Westall, 135 N. C., 492, citing Purnell v. R. R., 122 N. C., 832; Hopkins v. R. R., 131 N. C., 163. More recent eases, affirming the principle, are Freeman v. Brown, 151 N. C., 111; Morton v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C., 54; Johnston v. R. R., 163 N. C., 431; Lloyd v. R. R., 166 N. C., 24; Trust Co. v. Bank, ibid., 112. The rule of the Federal courts as to the right of the judge to suggest what the verdict should be does not apply to a case tried in the State court, even where the cause of action is given by a Federal statute like the Employers’ Liability Act. The power to advise the jury as to their verdict is not equivalent to the right to direct a verdict or to nonsuit, or to dismiss the action. Congress, having conferred concurrent jurisdiction on the State courts in such cases, did not undertake, if it had the power to do so, to regulate the procedure and practice in those courts. The plaintiff might elect to sue in the State court, and if he did so elect, it was, of course, intended that the suit should be tried according to the local practice and procedure. Fleming v. R. R., 160 N. C., 196. It would be anomalous to try a case in the State court according to a procedure foreign to its jurisdiction. We take it, therefore, that on motion to nonsuit, the evidence, with reference to its probative force and its construction, must be considered with due regard to our practice, as it relates to the remedy. Florida v. Anderson, 91 U. S., 667. And this is clearly so where there is no rule on the same subject prescribed by act of Congress creating the *117right, or where the State rule does not conflict with any such law. Re Fisk, 113 U. S., 713. The same is the rule as to evidence, Ryan v. Windley, 1 Wall. (U. S.), 66; as to a discontinuance, Cofee v. Planters Bank, 13 How. (U. S.), 183; as to what is a material variance, L. and L. and G. Ins. Co. v. Gunther, 116 U. S., 113, and, of course, as to the construction of pleadings upon the question of their sufficiency, Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S., 200. Many other examples might be stated which would illustrate to what a great extent the highest Federal court has gone in conforming the'practice, pleadings, forms and modes of proceedings, as near as may be, to those of the State courts, both under the Federal statutes and under the general rule applicable to such questions. If, therefore, we follow this rule of procedure, the court cannot, under our decisions, consider the testimony of David Campbell, the defendant’s witness, or any other part of the testimony offered in its behalf, when passing upon the motion for a nonsuit, except in so far as such testimony favors, or tends to establish, the plaintiff’s right to recover; and this rule applies also to defendant’s request for a special instruction to the effect that, if the jury believed the evidence, they should answer the issue as to assumption of risk in the affirmative.
But even if the practice and procedure of the Federal courts are applicable, there is ample evidence, as the record shows, to require the submission of the case to the jury, as it will appear by reading the testimony that the choice between a safe method of running his engine and a dangerous one was not left to the plaintiff. Both methods were dangerous. The glass water gauge was safer, in one respect, than the gauge cocks, because it recorded the height of the water in the boiler more accurately and was more likely to prevent an explosion of the boiler, while it presented an element of danger itself because of the absence of the guard-glass, and the gauge cocks were dangerous because they did not gauge the quantity of water- in the boiler with accuracy, and, having a small tube and being of a different construction, they were liable to be stopped up by mud and sediment in the water. The jury only could decide what a man of ordinary prudence would have done in the circumstances. Whether plaintiff reported the defect in the water gauge and was told that it would be repaired was certainly a question for the jury to decide,'in the conflict of testimony. Some extracts from the testimony will, I think, fully sustain these views:
The plaintiff, James T. Horton, testified: “I told Powie Matthews that the guard glass was gone, and asked him if he had any of them. He was the day roundhouse foreman, and he said no, they did not have any here. I told him the guard glass to the water-glass was gone, and he said they did not have any and did not keep them in stock, and they were in Portsmouth, but he would send to Portsmouth and get one. He said, ‘You will have to run her like she is.’ ”
*118Powbatair Matthews testified: “I was asked the question as to whether Mr. Horton reported the absence of that glass, and said, U do not remember,’ and I do not. That is as far as I go and is as far as I know. I do not remember. I do not deny it.”
Edgar W. Barbee testified: “As to the duty of an engineer in respect to obtaining a guard glass or flag or torpedoes, fuses, or anything of that nature, or oil cans, from the storeroom, I would tell the foreman I did not have it. It was customary to send the fireman for it. The requisition would come from the foreman. The foreman would send the article to me. I would put it in myself. You would drop it in just like you put a quarter in a slot machine. . . . Yes, they do pay attention to verbal requests. Yes, you can, that-way, send your fireman and get a guard glass, if they have them in stock.”
• J. A. Massey testified: “I had charge of the storeroom. ... I know who applied for them (guard glasses) ; the engineers did. They would apply to the master mechanic, general foreman, or the foreman. The glass in the Buckner glass was a supply. I did not have any Buckner water guard glasses in stock down there on 4 August, 1910. I did not have any between 27 July and 4 August. ... If the engineer wanted a lamp, or flag, or a torch, or torpedoes, or a piece of glass to drop into one of these guards, he would report it to the master mechanic, or the general foreman, or the foreman, and ask him for a requisition for whatever article he wanted, and bring that requisition to the storeroom, and he would get that directly and not through the written report of the engineer for repairs.”
This evidence shows that defendant had notice that the guard glass was missing; that plaintiff had exercised care and diligence in restoring it, and that he had complied with the rules of the company. The plaintiff testified: “I did not say with pressure on that tube in the glass case that the water-glass is liable to explode at any time. No, that is not so. I have run those a year without their exploding. . . . No, I did not know if it did explode without the guard glass that it would be liable to hurt the engineer, as I have seen lots of them explode without hurting the engineer. . . . Yes, you can operate an engine without a water gauge, with water cocks, but not as well, as you cannot keep these cocks open; they are liable to stop up. But a water-glass has not so much bigger opening here than the gauge cock. They are the safest things at all, as they do not stop up like the gauge cocks — like all of the gauge cocks I have seen. ... I did not attempt to cut it off. I needed it. I did not attempt to run my engine without it.”
Ernest Horton, on this point, testified: “It may last a day, a week, a month, or a year, and it may last an hour or shorter. . . . Would it be the proper thing, in the event there was no guard glass on the water gauge, to shut off the water-glass and run the engine with a gauge cock ? *119Answer: Tbe proper way, in my opinion, would be to run with the water-glass turned on. . . . What is the proper and safe thing to do % Answer: The proper way, in my opinion, would be to run with the water-glass turned on. ... I have not had one (gauge glass) to explode with me in the last year, to my knowledge. ... In case it does not leak, I do not shut it off.”
Edgar W. Barbee, witness for defendant, testified: “Yes, it is true that engineers on the Seaboard run their engines out with the water-glass, without cutting it off, with the guard glass missing, prior to the time Mr. Horton was injured.”
From this and much testimony of the same character, it is apparent that not only one, but many trips might be safely made with a water gauge unprotected by a guard glass or shield. A pregnant circumstance, which was in evidence and for the jury’s consideration, was the fact that the fireman, W. S. Benton, a witness introduced by the defendant, testified that he knew that the guard glass was broken; that in fact he was the man who broke it, as he started out on the first trip with the plaintiff, and that he did not call it to his attention, and that he sat directly in front of the water gauge during the entire trip to Aberdeen and the return trip from Aberdeen to Raleigh. That he made the second trip, also, and likewise faced the same unprotected water gauge, and did it again upon the return trip, and that he made the third trip from Raleigh to Aberdeen and again faced the unprotected water-glass, and that this explosion and injury to the plaintiff occurred on the return from the third trip to Aberdeen, and that he did all of this without thinking of being hurt.
These quotations from the testimony are made at random. A careful examination of it will disclose that there was a conflict of testimony upon the material issues, which, of course, takes the case to the jury.