Craven Ex Rel. Craven v. Worth Manufacturing Co.

66 S.E. 203, 151 N.C. 352, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 271
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 24, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 203 (Craven Ex Rel. Craven v. Worth Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Craven Ex Rel. Craven v. Worth Manufacturing Co., 66 S.E. 203, 151 N.C. 352, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 271 (N.C. 1909).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

There is no reversible error appearing in this case. The evidence on the part of plaintiff tended to show that T. W. Craven,, a minor, between sixteen and seventeen years of age, and without experience in this work, was sent by his foreman and boss into the lapper room to learn to run the lapper, and for that purpose was placed under one Wiley Spivey, the boss of the lapper room; that soon after going into the room plaintiff was directed by Spivey to clean off the rollers, without further instructions as to his duty or the dangers incident to it, these dangers not being observable by an inexperienced, untrained workman; that in the effort to carry out the order, and owing to his lack of training and failure to receive proper instructions, plaintiff’s hand was caught in one of the machines and seriously and permanently injured.

This testimony brings plaintiff’s case within the principles declared in Chesson v. Walker, 146 N. C., 511, and Avery v. Lumber Co., 146 N. C., 592, and other cases of like tenor. The objection chiefly assigned by defendant was the failure on the part of his Honor below to sustain his motion of nonsuit, but this motion was predicated largely on the defendant’s evidence, which the jury have rejected. Under a charge free from error they have accepted the plaintiff’s version of the occurrence, andj on the authorities cited, plaintiff’s cause of action is clearly made out.

There is no error, and the judglnent below is affirmed.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance
102 S.E. 887 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Dunn v. . Lumber Co.
90 S.E. 18 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Dunn v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
172 N.C. 129 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Horne v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
69 S.E. 132 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Holton v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
67 S.E. 325 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 S.E. 203, 151 N.C. 352, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craven-ex-rel-craven-v-worth-manufacturing-co-nc-1909.