Allen v. Raleigh-wyo. Mining Co, No. 8356.

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtLITZ
Citation186 S.E. 612
PartiesALLEN. v. RALEIGH-WYOMING MINING CO.
Docket NumberNo. 8356.
Decision Date20 June 1936

186 S.E. 612

ALLEN.
v.
RALEIGH-WYOMING MINING CO.

No. 8356.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

June 20, 1936.


Syllabus by the Court.

Section 2, article 4, chapter 23, Code 1931, authorizes an action for damages by an employee against his employer, notwithstanding the Compensation Act, for injury caused by the deliberate intention of the employer to produce the same. Held, that a specific intent on the part of the employer to produce the injury must be shown to support a recovery in such case.

Error to Circuit Court, Raleigh County.

Action by Anthony Ross Allen against the Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Company. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Reversed and new trial awarded.

McGinnis, Ashworth & Mann, of Beck-ley, for plaintiff in error.

Clay S. Crouse and John Q. Hutchinson, both of Beckley, for defendant in error.

LITZ, Judge.

This is an action under section 2, article 4, chapter 23, Code 1931, providing that an employee sustaining injury "from the deliberate intention of his employer to produce such injury" shall be entitled to compensation under the statute and damages from the employer to the extent of his injury in excess of the amount received or receivable under the Compensation Act.

Plaintiff, Anthony Ross Allen, was injured in the course and as the result of his employment, as servant of defendant, Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Company, on the night of June 7, 1934, while riding the front end of a trip of empty mine cars in the coal mine of defendant, in Raleigh county, by coming in contact with a wooden trapdoor hung across the track. He had been working in the mine about two months. Previous to the day of the injury, a canvas, suspended at the point of the accident, served as a brattice. On that day the canvas was removed and the trapdoor installed. The cars were being pushed in the mine by an electric motor on which the section foreman, Garland Whitt, was riding. Whitt knew of the installation of the trapdoor, and testified that he had advised plaintiff of the fact before the accident. He also testi-

[186 S.E. 613]

fied that, as the trip of cars approached the door, he directed the motorman to slow down, and that the motor and cars were moving very slowly at the time of the collision. But he does not say whether he had, before the accident, informed the motorman of the door or directed him to stop the trip before reaching the point of its location. Plaintiff denied that he knew of the door or that Whitt had given him any warning. Judgment was entered on a verdict of $1,600 against defendant in favor of plaintiff, and defendant prosecutes error.

The question for decision is whether the evidence is sufficient to prove that the plaintiff's injury was the result of "the deliberate intention" of defendant "to produce such injury, " within the meaning of the statute. Our original compensation statute, enacted in 1913, substantially followed, in many respects, the provisions of the first compensation act of the state of Washington, passed in 1911, and the provision now in question was adopted almost in the exact language of the Washington act; the only difference being the use of the word "employee" in our statute for "workman" in the Washington act. In 1913 the state of Oregon also adopted as a part of its first compensation act the provision in question, and the Supreme Court of that state judicially determined its meaning in Jenkins v. Carman Mfg. Co. (1916) 79 Or. 448, 155 P. 703, 705, 11 N.C.C.A. 547. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint in the case which had been brought by an employee to recover damages from his employer for injuries sustained by him from the operation of a defective roller in a sawmill, at which he was employed, upon the allegation that the employer, knowing of the defective machinery, carelessly, recklessly, and negligently failed to repair the same and required workmen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Stone v. St. Joseph's Hosp. of Parkersburg, No. 26962.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 14, 2000
    ...law. Cf., Larzo v. Swift & Co., 129 W.Va. 436, 445, 40 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1946); Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 636, 186 S.E. 612, 614 (1936) ("In construing statutes adopted from another state, the judicial interpretation already placed on that statute by the highest jud......
  • Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., Nos. 13926
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 27, 1978
    ...wilful, wanton, and reckless misconduct, and to the extent that the syllabus point in Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 186 S.E. 612 (1936), syllabus point 3 of Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc., 135 W.Va. 739, 65 S.E.2d 87 (1951), and syllabus point 2 of Eisnaugle ......
  • Cline v. Joy Mfg. Co., Nos. 15649
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 29, 1983
    ...(1976); Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc., 135 W.Va. 739, 65 S.E.2d 87 (1951); Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 186 S.E. 612 (1936); Maynard v. Island Creek Coal Co., 115 W.Va. 249, 175 S.E. 70 (1934); Collins v. Dravo Contracting Co., 114 W.Va. 229, 171 S.E. 757 6......
  • Breimhorst v. Beckman, Nos. 34723 and 34727.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 17, 1949
    ...Even gross negligence is Not equivalent to a deliberate intent to inflict injury. Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 635, 186 S.E. 612, 614;Duncan v. Perry Packing Co., 162 Kan. 79, 174 P.2d 78. The element of ‘malicious or deliberate intent’ required on the part of an empl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Stone v. St. Joseph's Hosp. of Parkersburg, No. 26962.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • July 14, 2000
    ...law. Cf., Larzo v. Swift & Co., 129 W.Va. 436, 445, 40 S.E.2d 811, 816 (1946); Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 636, 186 S.E. 612, 614 (1936) ("In construing statutes adopted from another state, the judicial interpretation already placed on that statute by the highest jud......
  • Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc., Nos. 13926
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • June 27, 1978
    ...wilful, wanton, and reckless misconduct, and to the extent that the syllabus point in Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 186 S.E. 612 (1936), syllabus point 3 of Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc., 135 W.Va. 739, 65 S.E.2d 87 (1951), and syllabus point 2 of Eisnaugle ......
  • Cline v. Joy Mfg. Co., Nos. 15649
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • September 29, 1983
    ...(1976); Brewer v. Appalachian Constructors, Inc., 135 W.Va. 739, 65 S.E.2d 87 (1951); Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 186 S.E. 612 (1936); Maynard v. Island Creek Coal Co., 115 W.Va. 249, 175 S.E. 70 (1934); Collins v. Dravo Contracting Co., 114 W.Va. 229, 171 S.E. 757 6......
  • Breimhorst v. Beckman, Nos. 34723 and 34727.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 17, 1949
    ...Even gross negligence is Not equivalent to a deliberate intent to inflict injury. Allen v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Co., 117 W.Va. 631, 635, 186 S.E. 612, 614;Duncan v. Perry Packing Co., 162 Kan. 79, 174 P.2d 78. The element of ‘malicious or deliberate intent’ required on the part of an empl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT