McLaughlin Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Black

Supreme Court of North Carolina

McLaughlin Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Black

1 S.E.2d 130, 215 N.C. 85, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 201

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 1, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 130 (McLaughlin Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Black) 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

McLaughlin Ex Rel. McLaughlin v. Black, 1 S.E.2d 130, 215 N.C. 85, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 201 (N.C. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

ClaRksoN, J.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the defendant made a motion in the court below for judgment as in ease of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The court below overruled the motion. Exception by defendant. The motion was renewed by defendant at the conclusion of all the evidence and the court below granted the motion. In this we think there was error. We think the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

In Yol. 1, Sherman & Redfield on Law of'Negligence (6th Ed.), part . sec. 219, it is stated: “It is the duty of one who employs young persons in his service to take notice of their apparent age and ability, and to use ordinary care to protect them from risks which they cannot properly appreciate, and to which they ought not to be exposed. This is a duty which cannot be delegated; and any failure to perform it leaves the master subject to the same liability, with respect to such risks, as if the child were not a servant. For this purpose, the master must instruct such young servants in their work and warn them against the dangers to which it exposes them, and he must put this warning in such plain language as to be sure that they understand it and appreciate the danger. . . . Rut the master is not required to point out dangers which are known or must be obvious to and fully appreciated by the servant, after making due allowance for his youth. Generally, this question is for the jury. . . . (Part sec. 219a) : When the master has notice of such ignorance or inexperience on the part of the servant as would make the ordinary risks of the business especially perilous to that servant, he must give the servant explicit warning of the danger, and not allow him to undertake the work without a full explanation of its perils.” Fitzgerald v. Furniture Co., 131 N. C., 636 (639); Holton v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C., 68; Walters v. Sash and Blind Co., 154 N. C., 323; Ensley v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 687 (692-3); Holt v. Mfg. Co., 177 N. C., 170 (175).

For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Reversed.

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

ClaRksoN, J.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence the defendant made a motion in the court below for judgment as in ease of nonsuit. C. S., 567. The court below overruled the motion. Exception by defendant. The motion was renewed by defendant at the conclusion of all the evidence and the court below granted the motion. In this we think there was error. We think the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

In Yol. 1, Sherman & Redfield on Law of'Negligence (6th Ed.), part . sec. 219, it is stated: “It is the duty of one who employs young persons in his service to take notice of their apparent age and ability, and to use ordinary care to protect them from risks which they cannot properly appreciate, and to which they ought not to be exposed. This is a duty which cannot be delegated; and any failure to perform it leaves the master subject to the same liability, with respect to such risks, as if the child were not a servant. For this purpose, the master must instruct such young servants in their work and warn them against the dangers to which it exposes them, and he must put this warning in such plain language as to be sure that they understand it and appreciate the danger. . . . Rut the master is not required to point out dangers which are known or must be obvious to and fully appreciated by the servant, after making due allowance for his youth. Generally, this question is for the jury. . . . (Part sec. 219a) : When the master has notice of such ignorance or inexperience on the part of the servant as would make the ordinary risks of the business especially perilous to that servant, he must give the servant explicit warning of the danger, and not allow him to undertake the work without a full explanation of its perils.” Fitzgerald v. Furniture Co., 131 N. C., 636 (639); Holton v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C., 68; Walters v. Sash and Blind Co., 154 N. C., 323; Ensley v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 687 (692-3); Holt v. Mfg. Co., 177 N. C., 170 (175).

For the reasons given, the judgment of the court below is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 130, 215 N.C. 85, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-ex-rel-mclaughlin-v-black-nc-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack