American Sugar-Refining Co. v. Tatum

• Decision Date: 19 December 1893
• Docket Number: 154.
• Citation: 60 F. 514
• Parties: AMERICAN SUGAR-REFINING CO. v. TATUM.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

60 F. 514

AMERICAN SUGAR-REFINING CO. v. TATUM.

No. 154.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 19, 1893

W. W Howe and S. S. Prentiss, for plaintiff in error.

B. R Forman, Wynne Rogers, and Joseph N. Wolfson, for defendant in error.

Before PARDEE and McCORMICK, Circuit Judges, and LOCKE, District Judge.

PARDEE Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff below, who is defendant in error, made the following allegations as to citizenship and as to jurisdiction of the lower court, and there is nothing in the record to supplement them:

'The petition of Arthur Robinson Tatum, a citizen of Louisiana, and residing in New Orleans, with respect shows that the American Sugar-Refining Company, a corporation domiciled and doing business in this city, and a citizen of New Jersey, and found within the eastern district of Louisiana, of which George S. Eastwicke is general manager and authorized to accept service of legal process, is indebted to your petitioner in the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), for this, to wit.'

The plaintiff below further stated his case as follows:

'That on and prior to the 20th day of June, 1892, your petitioner was employed by the said American Sugar-Refining Company as a laborer to work at their refinery situated in this city. That under said employment petitioner was employed to work in the fifth story of said refinery, and under said employment was required to watch and care for large tanks used for the purpose of receiving sugar that is pumped up through a large 18-inch pipe, running from said fifth story to the first floor of the said refinery. That, after said pumping of sugar ceases, and the tanks having sufficient, the said 18-inch pipe is cleaned by the engineer on the first floor by his turning on a strong force of steam through said pipe, which forces the sugar out, and thoroughly cleans said pipe; and, should any one be in close proximity to said pipe he is liable to be scalded and killed. That said steam is always turned on immediately after the sugar-pumping ceases. That on said date, and at said place, without any warning, or notice by the said defendant company or its agents or engineer in charge of the engine on the first floor to petitioner or to the workmen on the fifth floor, where your petitioner was working, and in close proximity to the said pipe, his employment requiring him to be there, the steam was turned on with a great force, although the pumping of sugar had long since ceased, and your petitioner was badly scalded and burned, which caused him great bodily injury and pain, maiming and disfiguring him for life, and rendering him less able to earn a living for himself and family, and causing him great mental and physical pain, whereby he has been disabled from that day to the present, and will continue to be so for the balance of his life, or for a long time to come. That your petitioner was using due diligence and care on his part, and that the defendant company could have prevented the said disaster by the employment of a competent and trustworthy engineer, and by the use of proper appliances for the giving notice by the engineer to the occupants of the upper story, where your petitioner was engaged, either by messenger, bell, or speaking tube, which they neglected and failed to do. That it is the legal duty of the defendant company to maintain and employ competent foremen, workmen, and engineers to superintend, manage, and care for and direct their work, and thus prevent the disaster which occurred to your petitioner, and which they failed to do. That your petitioner was lawfully compelled and directed to be in the place where he was injured, and had no notice or warning of the danger, and same was caused by the gross neglect of duty on their part by not having the proper appliances and competent, faithful, and trustworthy workmen and employes.'

Defendant excepted to said petition, and the plaintiff amended as follows:

'The supplemental and amended petition of Arthur Robinson Tatum with respect shows: That in conformity with the order of the honorable judge presiding in the above-mentioned court, petitioner reiterates all the allegations of his said original petition filed herein, except in so far as the same is altered by this amended petition; and alleges further that the said Arthur R. Tatum was employed as a laborer by the said American Sugar-Refining Company, to work at their refinery, situated in this city; and that under said employment he was caused to work in the fifth story of said refinery, and was required to watch and care for large tanks used for the purpose of receiving sugar, which was to be pumped up from the first floor into said tanks, which pumping was to be done by means of

...