#### A. S. CRAVEN and A. S. CRAVEN, Next Friend, for T. W. Craven, v. THE WORTH MANUFACTURING COMPANY.

(Filed 24 November, 1909.)

1. Master and Servant — Employee, Inexperienced — Latent Danger— Negligence.

Tbe plaintiff is liable in damages for tbe act of tbe boss of bis lapper room in directing an inexperienced minor, an employee over whom be bad charge, to do certain work dangerous to bim witbout further instructing him as to bis duty, or as to dangers incident to it wbicb would not be observable by an inexperienced, untrained workman.

2. Nonsuit — Defendant’s Evidence.

A motion to nonsuit predicated largely on defendant’s .own evidence will be denied.

Appeal from E. B. Jones, J., March Term, 1909, of Randolph.

Civil action, to recover damages for injuries caused by alleged negligence on tbe part of tbe defendant company. Tbe action was brought by T. W. Craven, a minor, suing by next friend, for injuries done to himself, and by T. W. Craven, tbe father, for damages by reason of loss of services during tbe minority of tbe son, and no objection was made by defendant to such joinder. Tbe jury rendered tbe following verdict:

1. “Was plaintiff T. W. Craven injured by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, as alleged in tbe.complaint?” Answer: “Yes."

2. “Did tbe plaintiff contribute to bis own injury'by bis own negligence?” Answer: “No.”

3. “What damage, if any, is plaintiff T. W. Craven entitled to recover ?” Answer: “Nine hundred dollars.”

There was judgment on tbe verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepted and appealed.

*353 Kayes & Bynum and B. K. Dixon for plaintiff.

Hammer & Spence and Morehead & Sapp for defendant.

Per Curiam:

There is no reversible error appearing in this case. The evidence on the part of plaintiff tended to show that T. W. Craven,, a minor, between sixteen and seventeen years of age, and without experience in this work, was sent by his foreman and boss into the lapper room to learn to run the lapper, and for that purpose was placed under one Wiley Spivey, the boss of the lapper room; that soon after going into the room plaintiff was directed by Spivey to clean off the rollers, without further instructions as to his duty or the dangers incident to it, these dangers not being observable by an inexperienced, untrained workman; that in the effort to carry out the order, and owing to his lack of training and failure to receive proper instructions, plaintiff’s hand was caught in one of the machines and seriously and permanently injured.

This testimony brings plaintiff’s case within the principles declared in Chesson v. Walker, 146 N. C., 511, and Avery v. Lumber Co., 146 N. C., 592, and other cases of like tenor. The objection chiefly assigned by defendant was the failure on the part of his Honor below to sustain his motion of nonsuit, but this motion was predicated largely on the defendant’s evidence, which the jury have rejected. Under a charge free from error they have accepted the plaintiff’s version of the occurrence, andj on the authorities cited, plaintiff’s cause of action is clearly made out.

There is no error, and the judglnent below is affirmed.

No error.