Walters v. Durham Lumber Co.
80 S.E. 49, 163 N.C. 536, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 210 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable for injuries to an employee caused by an incompetent fellow-servant if the employer was negligent in hiring or retaining that employee. Evidence of the fellow-servant's general reputation, habitual carelessness, and specific prior acts of negligence is admissible to prove both the incompetency and the employer's actual or constructive notice.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company.
- Milton Carden was a fellow employee, or 'fellow-servant,' of the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff sustained an injury allegedly attributable to the carelessness of Milton Carden.
- A witness, W.E. Young, had previously served as a foreman for the defendant company and had supervised Carden's work.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued his employer in a trial court for injuries allegedly caused by a fellow employee.
- During the trial, the court excluded the plaintiff's proffered evidence regarding the fellow employee's general reputation and work habits.
- Following the exclusion of this evidence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a judgment of nonsuit, dismissing the plaintiff's case.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment of nonsuit to the higher court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is evidence of a fellow employee's general reputation for incompetency, habitual carelessness, and specific prior acts of negligence admissible to prove an employer's negligence in retaining that employee?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoke, J.
Yes, such evidence is admissible. While the fellow-servant rule generally shields an employer from liability for injuries caused by one employee to another, an exception exists where the employer negligently hired or retained an incompetent employee. To establish such negligence, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fellow-servant's incompetency and the employer's notice thereof. Evidence of general reputation for incompetency, habitual carelessness, and specific prior acts of negligence is relevant and admissible not to prove negligence in the particular incident, but to establish the employee's character of incompetency and to show that the employer knew or, with ordinary care, should have known of the employee's unfitness. Knowledge acquired by a vice principal, such as a foreman, in the scope of his duties is imputed to the employer as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'negligent retention' exception to the common law fellow-servant rule within the jurisdiction. By adopting the majority view that specific prior acts of negligence are admissible, the court makes it easier for plaintiffs to prove an employer's constructive knowledge of an employee's incompetence. This places a greater burden on employers to actively supervise their workforce and address patterns of carelessness, as they cannot claim ignorance if an employee's unfitness is demonstrable through reputation or a history of negligent acts. The ruling clarifies the evidentiary foundation required to bring a negligent retention claim before a jury.
