#### WILLIAM M. BELLAMY, Administrator, v. BLADEN COUNTY LUMBER COMPANY.

(Filed 3 May, 1922.)

1. Employer and Employee — Master and Servant — Sale Place to Work— Youthful Employees — Warnings—Instructions—Supervision.

It is required of the employer of labor to exercise ordinary care in providing them a reasonably safe place to work, and especially to warn and instruct those who are youthful and inexperienced concerning the risks and dangers which import menace of serious injury, and to provide adequate supervision when conditions are such as to require it.

2. Same — Negligence—Evidence—Nonsuit—Trials.

The owner of a lumber plant, a corporation, used in connection with its plant a slide to haul up -the logs from the water. . There was evidence *434tending to show that where this slide entered the water the water was knee deep, and waist deep where it ended; and beyond was the channel ot the river some twenty or thirty feet deep; that the plaintiff’s intestate was a boy about 15 years of age, and inexperienced, and while at work under the defendant’s superintendent in repairing this slide, the superintendent left the intestate, with other boy employees, in the water to clear out the bottom and old boards at the foot of the slide, directing them to stay there until his return, but without warning or instructing them as to their danger; that the plaintiff could not swim with the clothes or shoes he necessarily was wearing in the performance of his duties, and in the absence of the superintendent was seen to fall forward and was carried out by the rising river, and was drowned. Upon defendant’s motion as of nonsuit: Held,, sufficient as to the actionable negligence of the defendant to take the case to the jury.

Appeal by plaintiff from Connor, J., at September Term, 1921, of BbuNswick.

Civil action to recover damages of defendant for wrongfully and negligently causing the death of Fred Ballard, plaintiff’s intestate.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, on motion, there was judgment of non-suit, and plaintiff excepted and appealed.

Robert W. Davis and John D. Bellamy for plaintiff.

Rountree & Carr for defendant.

Hoke, J.

There were facts in evidence on part of plaintiff tending to show that defendant company owned and operated a lumber mill near the Cape Fear River in said county. That the" mill carriage was about 30 feet from the river and 20 to 25 feet above the water level, and there was a slide 1 feet in width running from the carriage down into the log pen in the river, and which extended into the pen and under the "water a distance of 10 or 12 feet. That the water was about knee-deep where the slide “struck” the river and waist-deep where it ended, and the logs were dragged from the river as needed up this slide on to the mill carriage, etc. That the slide had become broken or torn up, and when the logs were being pulled out of the pen they would catch and stop and it had become necessary or desirable to repair same. That the intestate was a lad of about 15 years of age, in employment of defendant at the time, and had been for about four days, and on 15 August, 1918, he with two or three other youthful employees, were directed by the foreman of the mill, one Douglas, to go with him and repair the slide where it had become torn up or broken under the water. That while so engaged Douglas, the foreman, finding that he would need to saw a piece of timber for the purpose, went with Ben Willis, one of the boys, to the mill for thp purpose, instructing the intestate and his comrades to stay there in the water and clear out the bottom and the old boards at *435tbe foot of tbe slide. Tbat tbe two boys were in tbe water wben Douglas left, and tbat be gave them no warning of any danger, but told them “to stay in there till be cut tbe piece at tbe mill. Tbat tbe channel of tbe river was from 30 to 40 feet deep, and was 30 or 40 feet away.” Tbat intestate could not swim, and was in tbe water with bis clothes and shoes on, ready to do tbe work required. Tbat tbe tide was rising in tbe river, and tbe intestate was seen to fall forward and was caught and carried into deep water and was drowned. It is fully recognized in this jurisdiction and elsewhere tbat an employer of labor in this class of work, in tbe exercise of ordinary care, must provide for its employees a reasonably safe place to work, and to warn and instruct youthful or inexperienced employees concerning tbe risks and dangers which import menace of serious injury, and in tbe exercise of such care, to provide also adequate supervision wben conditions are such as to require it. A rule tbat is especially insistent in case of youthful employees wben their lack of experience and training is likely without it to subject them to risk of serious or substantial injury. In Ensley v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 687-695, Associate Justice Walicer quotes with approval on the' subject, 1 Shearman & Eedfield on Negligence (6 ed.), secs. 219 and 219 a, as follows: “It is tbe duty of one who employs young persons in bis service to take notice of their apparent age and ability, and to use ordinary care to protect them from risks which they cannot properly appreciate, and to which they ought not to be exposed. This is a duty which cannot be delegated; and any failure to perform it leaves tbe master subject to tbe same liability, with respect to such risks, as if tbe child were not a servant. For this purpose, tbe master must instruct such young servants in their work and warn them against tbe dangers to which it exposes them, and be must put this warning in such plain language as to be sure tbat they understand it and appreciate tbe danger. . . . Tbe principles governing tbe employment of minors are to a large degree also applicable to tbe employment of inexperienced, ignorant, feeble, or incompetent servants. A master having notice of any such defect in a servant, no matter what bis age may be, is bound to use ordinary care to instruct tbe inexperienced or ignorant, and to avoid putting tbe feeble to work too heavy for their strength, and generally to refrain from exposing them to risks which they are not fit to encounter. "When tbe master has notice of such ignorance or inexperience on tbe part of tbe servant as would make tbe ordinary risks of tbe business especially perilous to tbat servant, be must give tbe servant explicit warning of tbe danger, and not allow him to undertake tbe work without a full explanation of its perils.” This being tbe rule of obligation, and applying tbe principle uniformly prevailing with us tbat on a judgment of nonsuit, tbe facts which make in favor -of plaintiff’s claim *436should, be accepted as true, and construed in the light most favorable to him. We are of opinion that the evidence of record affords a permissible inference that there has been in this instance a negligent breach of duty on the part of defendant, constituting an actionable wrong, and that on the facts as now presented the judgment of nonsuit is erroneous. This will be certified that the said judgment will be set aside and the case submitted to the jury on appropriate issues.

Reversed.