Satchell v. . McNair

Connor, J. In bis charge to the jury bis Honor instructed them as follows: “Tbis case, gentlemen, that we are trying, is not based upon a contract; it is not based upon any agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendants, and any agreement that may have been made between Amanda Satcbell and the defendants, or Mr. Long, or any other person representing the defendants, would have nothing to do with the case and nothing to do with your verdict.” Plaintiff excepted to tbis instruction; tbis exception is presented upon tbis appeal as the basis of the sixth assignment of error. At the time be was killed, Robert Satcbell, plaintiff’s intestate and son, was 15 years of age. He was at work at defendants’ mill as a tripper, having been thus, employed for about two weeks. Prior to tbis time, be bad been working for defendants, with bis mother’s consent, in the woods. It is admitted in the answer that the duties of a tripper at a sawmill are such as to require care and prudence on the part of the employee" for bis own safety. Defendant, J. J. McKay, testified that be did not consider the position of a tripper as very dangerous. He said: “I would not pick up a man without any experience and put him in one of the mills as a tripper, but tbis fellow bad worked around the mill and knew bow to pull off boards.” Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that on several occasions prior to the death of her son, she talked with Mr. J. J. McKay and also to the foreman, Mr. Long, and told him that she did not want her son to do the tripping or to work at the mill; that she requested them not to place him at tbis work, because it was dangerous for a boy of bis years to do. She testified that her son bad been working for defendants in the woods, and that one day Mr. Long called him and hired him to work at the *474 mill as a tripper; tbat sbe went to Mr. Long and told bim not to bire Robert to trip, and be said, “I won’t put bim to tripping any longer.” Tbis was about a week before Robert was killed. Mr. Long, testifying as a witness for defendants, denied tbat plaintiff bad tbis conversation witb bim. It is true, as bis Honor instructed the jury, tbat tbis action is not based upon a contract; but the peremptory instruction tbat the agreement between Amanda Satcbell and Mr. Long, foreman of the mill, if the jury should find tbat sucb an agreement was made, would bave nothing to do witb the case and nothing to do witb the verdict, cannot, upon the evidence in tbis case, be sustained. the mother, and natural guardian of the infant, having forbidden defendants to employ bim as a tripper, according to her testimony defendants violated a duty to the infant when they employed bim and put bim to work in tbis position. Their act in so employing bim, and in so putting bim to work as a tripper, was in itself a breach of tbis duty, and if it was the proximate cause of the injury, was actionable negligence. His Honor failed to instruct the jury in accordance witb the law applicable to the facts, which the jury might find from the evidence. Haynie v. Power Co., 157 N. C., 503. In bis opinion in tbis case Justice Brown says: “the sum and substance of the many cases cited in these notes (30 L. R. A. (N. S.), 311) are tbat it is a general rule tbat an employer putting a minor servant, against bis parent’s consent, to do the work by which the child is injured, commits an actionable wrong, for which the employer is liable, although there is no other evidence of negligence upon bis part.” R. R. v. Fort, 17 Wallace, 553, and cases cited in Rose’s notes annotating tbis case. See, also, Ensley v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 687. By tbis instruction, plaintiff was deprived of any consideration by the jury of the facts in tbis regard, as sbe contended them to be, and of the benefit of well-settled principles of law applicable to sucb facts. His Honor further instructed tbe jury as follows: “Now, tbe plaintiff alleges in her complaint, and it is contended here upon tbe trial, tbat there was a board suspended over tbe saw, something like 18 inches in width, and tbat tbis board prevented Mr.. Long from seeing tbe boy; but it is my duty, gentlemen, to charge you tbat there is no evidence in tbis case which would justify you in finding tbis contention to be true, because tbe witnesses fox tbe plaintiff bave testified tbat each one of tbe parties in question — that is, tbe boy and Long — were in plain view of tbe other; tbat tbe boy could see Long and tbat Long could see tbe boy; in other words, tbat tbe board in question was not between them at tbe time of tbe accident. Therefore, gentlemen, you cannot find as a fact tbat there was any negligence on tbe part of tbe defendants in tbis respect, and a verdict based upon sucb presumption would be entirely *475 erroneous, and it would be my duty to set it aside if it were so rendered.” Plaintiff excepted to this instruction; tbis exception is the basis of the seventh assignment of error. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that, just before his death, Robert Satehell, in the performance of his duties as tripper, was in the act of taking from the carriage a board which had just been cut from a log on the carriage; that the sawyer was standing in his position, about 6 feet from Robert, waiting for him to take the board off the carriage and adjust the “dogs,” as it was his duty to do, before reversing the lever and thus causing the carriage to return for another “cut”; that while Robert was thus engaged, the sawyer “recklessly, carelessly and negligently pulled the lever back while not looking towards said deceased, and recklessly, carelessly and negligently neglected to observe, as he was required to do, and by reason of the obstruction of his view by a board between the sawyer and said deceased, did not and could not see him, and thereby caught his clothing by the ‘dog’ and threw the deceased into the machinery, where his body was torn and mangled,” thus causing his death. There was evidence “that there was a board hanging over the saw, between the sawyer and the tripper, 3 or 4 feet long, hanging straight down, right above the saw, from the joist; that the board was about a foot and a half wide, and was there to keep the sawdust'from flying; that the bottom of the board was about 5 inches from the teeth of the saw. The sawyer stood about 18 inches or more from a straight line in front of the saw, and the tripper about 2 feet or more from a straight line in the rear of the saw, and it was practically open between the sawyer and the tripper. There wasn’t any obstruction, except the board hanging over the saw. Satehell could see the sawyer all the time, and the sawyer could see Satehell.” The sawyer testified that the board did not come between him and where the tripper was standing; that Robert took the last two boards off the carriage, and that he saw that the carriage was clear; that he turned his head to look at the pedal under his foot, and that when he turned his head to look back up, Robert was on the saw, turning over. This evidence should have been submitted to the jury, in order that they might find whether or not, at the time the sawyer reversed the lever, the board obstructed his view and prevented him from seeing Satehell. There is error in the peremptory instruction, and the assignment is sustained. ¥e have examined the charge, which is set out in full, in the statement of case on appeal, with care. ¥e fail to find therein any instruction as to the duty which upon the facts as the jury might find them from the evidence the defendants owed to the plaintiff’s intestate. His *476 Honor instructed tbe jury as follows: “I charge you, as a matter of law, that you cannot guess — you are not permitted to guess — at anything, but you must find the facts from the evidence, and if the evidence in this case is of such character and quality as to satisfy you by the greater weight that there was some particular duty owing to the dead boy by defendants, and that duty was violated, and as a direct and proximate result of such violation he was killed, it would be your duty to answer this issue 'Yes’; otherwise, you should answer it 'No.’ ” We are unable to find in the charge any instruction as to the duty which the law imposed upon defendants with respect to plaintiff’s intestate, who, it is admitted, was their employee and was of the age of 15 years. It was the duty of the judge to so instruct the jury. Bowen v. Schnibben, 184 N. C., 248; Hauser v. Furniture Co., 174 N. C., 463; S. v. Merrick, 171 N. C., 788. There must be a New trial. Adams, J., not sitting.