{
  "id": 11271881,
  "name": "H. A. CHESSON v. WALKER & MYERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chesson v. Walker",
  "decision_date": "1908-02-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "511",
  "last_page": "513",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 N.C. 511"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "138 N. C., 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269923
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 4097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.448,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9378064314523275e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7351268355799894
    },
    "sha256": "490539db87bf3cf9d1c9a9ffe4c3e6deb2974ef7f6f9ac2fa5a880284009529c",
    "simhash": "1:daf649abd5aa4a50",
    "word_count": 700
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:49:58.256488+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. A. CHESSON v. WALKER & MYERS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bbown, J.\nThe evidence tends to prove that plaintiff, a minor, about nineteen years of age, was employed at defendants\u2019 sawmill to \u201crun on tbe tail end of a log carriage, to steady the log on tbe carriage and to set the dogs\u201d; that be was totally inexperienced in adjusting or operating machinery, and that tbe only mill work be bad ever done was to run on tbe log carriage. He was ordered by Hall, tbe sawyer, to go below and place tbe belt on tbe driving wheel, as it had become displaced. Hall gave plaintiff no instructions bow to proceed, and told him there was no danger. The plaintiff was entirely inexperienced and bad never adjusted a belt. In readjusting tbe belt tbe plaintiff\u2019s band was badly hurt by tbe small pulley.\nAt tbe close of tbe evidence defendants moved to nonsuit, and theunotion was overruled.\n1. Was plaintiff hurt by tbe negligence of a fellow-servant ? The uncontradicted evidence proves that Hall was not a fellow-servant of plaintiff, but that plaintiff was placed under Hall and was subject to bis orders. It therefore follows that, so far as plaintiff is concerned, tbe defendants are liable for Hall\u2019s negligence in not instructing him, an inexperienced youth, in tbe work be was directed to do. Tbe test is not Hall\u2019s right to hire or discharge plaintiff, but whether Hall was entrusted by defendants with tbe discharge of duties they owed plaintiff. Tanner v. Lumber Co., 140 N. C., 479.\nNor does tbe evidence show that plaintiff was injured by tbe negligence of Towe, admittedly a fellow-servant. Tbe latter was directed to clean out tbe chain, not for. tbe purpose of aiding plaintiff in putting on tbe belt, but to prevent tbe belt running off again after it was put on tbe driving pulley. The belt was on the little pulley and bad slipped off the big pulley. Plaintiff\u2019s band was caught in tbe lap of tbe belt before be could get it on tbe big pulley, and be was thrown to tbe little pulley and bis band hurt there.\n2. Tbe position that there is no evidence of negligence is untenable. Tbe plaintiff was an inexperienced youth, employed to sit on tbe log carriage and bold tbe log steady, and then to set up tbe dogs to bold it in place \u2014 an occupation attended with little danger. He bad never placed a belt upon tbe running pulley \u2014 a dangerous performance, evidently requiring some experience or instruction to do it with comparative safety. He was sent to do this work on tbe floor below, without previous instruction, and informed there was no danger in it by tbe man whose orders be was required to obey. This was evidence of negligence to be submitted to tbe jury. Jones v. Warehouse Co., 138 N. C., 546, and cases cited.\nWe find nothing in tbe record warranting another trial.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bbown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. M. Bond and S. B. Spruill for plaintiff.",
      "A. 0. Gaylord for\u2018\"defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. A. CHESSON v. WALKER & MYERS.\n(Filed 19 February, 1908).\n1. Employer and Employee \u2014 Fellow-servant\u2014Test.\nThe test of whether one is the fellow-servant of another is whether, in the employment of a common master, such other per: son is subject to his orders. ' '\n2. Employer and Employee \u2014 Respondeat Superior \u2014 Causal Connection \u2014 Evidence.\nThe superior cannot escape liability under the defense that the Injury was caused by a fellow-servant, without connecting the alleged fellow-servant with the cause of the injury.\nS. Same \u2014 Questions for Jury.\nThere is sufficient evidence of negligence to support a verdict for damages, when it appears that the master\u2019s duly authorized agent ordered an inexperienced youth, employed to perform duties comparatively without danger, .to do a dangerous act, without instructing him how to'do it and informing him it was without danger.\nCivil actiow to recover damages for an injury received by plaintiff: in putting a belt on the driving wheel at defendants\u2019 mill, tried at Spring Term, 1901, of tbe Superior Court of Wasi-iiNgtoN County, before W. R. Allen, J., and a jury.\nTbe usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence and damage were submitted, wbicb were found against defendants. Erom tbe judgment rendered tbe defendants appealed.\nW. M. Bond and S. B. Spruill for plaintiff.\nA. 0. Gaylord for\u2018\"defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0511-01",
  "first_page_order": 545,
  "last_page_order": 547
}