Beal v. Carolina Coal Co.

Clauk, C. J. The degree of care required of persons having the possession and control of dangerous explosives, such as dynamite, is of the highest kind, requiring constant caution in their care and custody. The degree of care required must be measured by the dangerous character of the article. Brittingham v. Stadiem, 151 N. C., 302; Wood v. *756 McCabe, ib., 458; McGhee v. R. R., 147 N. C., 142; Haynes v. Gas Co., 114 N. C., 203; Horne v. Power Co., 144 N. C., 375; Witsell v. R. R., 120 N. C., 557. It is true .that dynamite if properly bandied is harmless, but if there is negligence most serious results can happen. It was the duty of the plaintiff to use ordinary care to furnish a reasonably safe place for the plaintiff to work. This duty cannot be delegated, and if there is a breach of such duty which is the proximate cause of injury to the employee, the master is liable. An examination of the charge shows that the court correctly instructed the jury as to these matters. The plaintiff insists, and we think correctly, that the court in its charge properly instructed the jury on these matters taking the whole charge as an entirety, and that an assignment of error predicated upon an isolated paragraph cannot be sustained. Harris v. Harris, 178 N. C., 7; Hubbard v. Goodwin, 175 N. C., 174; Monk v. Goldstein, 172 N. C., 516; Cockran v. Smith, 171 N. C., 369. It was justly said in Taylor v. Tallassee Power Co., 174 N. C., 583, that it is not permissible to select detached portions of the charge for an assignment of error unless it contains distinct and independent propositions not explained or qualified in other parts of the charge. The manner and method of handling these explosives appears in the evidence and was a matter for the consideration of the jury, and upon consideration of all the evidence and taking the charge as a whole, we cannot see that the defendant has been prejudiced. No error.