Richardson v. American Cotton Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Richardson v. American Cotton Mills

130 S.E. 164, 190 N.C. 874, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 228

DecidedNovember 25, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 164 (Richardson v. American Cotton Mills) 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

Richardson v. American Cotton Mills, 130 S.E. 164, 190 N.C. 874, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 228 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This case was here before and a new trial granted defendant. Rich ardson v. Cotton Mills, 189 N. C., p. 653. Tbe principles of law applicable were clearly set forth in tbat case. From a careful-perusal of tbe record, tbe judge below followed tbe law as laid down in tbe former case. Tbe court, following tbe decision, defined “licensee” *875 and. “fellow-servant,” explained tbe distinction between tbe two and definitely instructed tbe jury as to tbe facts upon wbicb Lainer would be deemed a licensee and as to those upon wbicb be would be deemed a fellow-servant. Tbe court below laid down tbe long established rule: “It is tbe duty of tbe master, in tbe exercise of ordinary or reasonable care, to furnish or provide bis servant a reasonably safe and suitable place in which to work. This duty is primary and nondelegable.” Barnes v. Utility Co., ante, 387; Riggs v. Empire Mfg. Co., ante, 256; Thomas v. Lawrence, 189 N. C., 521. Tbe failure of tbe master in this duty, if tbe proximate cause of tbe injury, was properly presented to tbe jury.

We can find no prejudicial or reversible error in tbe record. Plaintiff recovered in tbe first action and a new trial was granted defendant for errors in law. In tbe present trial tbe court below followed tbe opinion heretofore written. Tbe questions of fact were found against tbe defendant — this was in tbe province of the jury.

We can find

No error.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This case was here before and a new trial granted defendant. Rich ardson v. Cotton Mills, 189 N. C., p. 653. Tbe principles of law applicable were clearly set forth in tbat case. From a careful-perusal of tbe record, tbe judge below followed tbe law as laid down in tbe former case. Tbe court, following tbe decision, defined “licensee” *875 and. “fellow-servant,” explained tbe distinction between tbe two and definitely instructed tbe jury as to tbe facts upon wbicb Lainer would be deemed a licensee and as to those upon wbicb be would be deemed a fellow-servant. Tbe court below laid down tbe long established rule: “It is tbe duty of tbe master, in tbe exercise of ordinary or reasonable care, to furnish or provide bis servant a reasonably safe and suitable place in which to work. This duty is primary and nondelegable.” Barnes v. Utility Co., ante, 387; Riggs v. Empire Mfg. Co., ante, 256; Thomas v. Lawrence, 189 N. C., 521. Tbe failure of tbe master in this duty, if tbe proximate cause of tbe injury, was properly presented to tbe jury.

We can find no prejudicial or reversible error in tbe record. Plaintiff recovered in tbe first action and a new trial was granted defendant for errors in law. In tbe present trial tbe court below followed tbe opinion heretofore written. Tbe questions of fact were found against tbe defendant — this was in tbe province of the jury.

We can find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 164, 190 N.C. 874, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-american-cotton-mills-nc-1925.