Brady v. Standard Oil Co.

174 S.E. 456, 206 N.C. 596, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 254

Opinion

Pee CubiaM.

The evidence disclosed that the defendant, Standard Oil Company, was not charged with the duty of inspecting and maintaining the appliance causing the death of plaintiff’s intestate. Therefore, the judgment as to it is supported by Merritt v. Power Co., 205 N. C., 259, and Bradshaw v. Power Co., 205 N. C., 850. The evidence further showed that the deceased at the time of his death was using the appliance in direct disobedience of positive instruction given by the employer. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the defendant Pritchard is sustained by familiar principles heretofore applied in Burnett v. Roanoke Mills Co., 152 N. C., 35, 67 S. E., 30; Smith v. R. R., 147 N. C., 603, 61 S. E., 575.

Affirmed.