Armour & Co. v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 16 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 2506.) |
| Citation | 194 S.W. 942 |
| Parties | ARMOUR & CO. v. MORGAN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by Eddie Morgan, by next friend, against Armour & Co. There was judgment for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (151 S. W. 861), and defendant brings error. Judgments of the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.
Capps, Canty, Hanger & Short, of Ft. Worth, H. E. Stager, of Chicago, Ill., and Wm. L. Evans, of Ft. Worth, for plaintiff in error. A. J. Clendenen and Ben M. Terrell, both of Ft. Worth, for defendant in error.
Eddie Morgan, the defendant in error, recovered a judgment in the district court of Tarrant county, Tex., for damages as compensation for personal injuries which he received while in the employ of the plaintiff in error, Armour & Co. When injured, he was engaged, with three co-workers, all of whom were minors, in bradding the ears on buckets, by means of an iron bradding machine, which had a top similar to a table, and which was fastened to the floor. The particular work which the defendant in error was doing at the time he was injured was dropping bucket ears into a slot, through which they passed to the place of the machine where the ears were bradded to the bucket. The machine was operated by electricity. When young Driscoll pressed a pedal of the machine with his foot, this connected the machine with the power in the building and put it in operation. Young Morgan was dropping the ears in the slot, and young Driscoll would work the pedal, which caused the ears to be bradded to the buckets. It was a part of the duty of the defendant in error to pick up from the floor the ears which had, by accident in handling them, been dropped thereon. At the time he was injured he was engaged in picking up the ears from the floor. He testified that he began doing this while young Driscoll was not operating the machine, but had left it for the purpose of securing a drink of water. Young Morgan, according to his testimony, got off his stool, knelt on the floor, and was picking up the ears therefrom with his right hand, with his left hand partly resting on the top of the machine. Young Driscoll returned to the machine and set it in motion, at which time the defendant in error's left hand was caught in the bradding machine at the place of bradding, and the injuries complained of were inflicted.
Several grounds of negligence were alleged, but the case was submitted to the jury upon the one which alleged that the plaintiff in error was guilty of negligence in failing to safeguard the cogwheels and other machinery under the bradding table where his hand was caught. From a verdict favorable to the defendant in error appeal was taken, which was passed upon by the Sixth Court of Civil Appeals, and the judgment of the district court affirmed. The Court of Civil Appeals found that the evidence warranted the conclusion that the plaintiff in error was guilty of negligence in failing to provide guards or fenders to dangerous machinery as pleaded, which negligence was the direct and proximate cause of the injury to the minor. A writ of error was granted by this court on the petition of the plaintiff in error.
If the injury complained of was caused alone by the negligence of young Driscoll, as a fellow servant, the defendant in error was not entitled to recover. If it was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff in error alone, or by its negligence blended with the negligence of the fellow servant, Driscoll, the defendant in error was entitled to recover. The trial court did not submit to the jury any charge authorizing a recovery favorable to the plaintiff in error in the event the jury should believe that the injuries inflicted upon the defendant in error were caused alone by the negligence of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Woodall
...Gammage v. Gamer Co., 213 S. W. 930, by Commission of Appeals, whose conclusions were adopted by the Supreme Court; Armour & Co. v. Morgan, 108 Tex. 417, 194 S. W. 942, and many other cases which might be In the case of Gammage v. Gamer Co., 213 S. W. 930, noted above, plaintiff was allowed......
-
Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co. v. Cunningham
...connection appellants cite the following cases, to wit: M., K. T. Ry. Co. v. McGlamory, 89 Tex. 635, 35 S. W. 1058; Armour & Co. v. Morgan, 108 Tex. 417, 194 S. W. 942; Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 467, 240 S. W. 517; C. & S. Ry. Co. v. Rowe (Tex. Com. App.) 238 S. W. "Appellees conten......
-
Farley v. M M Cattle Co.
...caused by the negligence of another employee when both are engaged in a common employment or enterprise. E.g., Armour & Co. v. Morgan, 108 Tex. 417, 194 S.W. 942 (1917); Sandefur v. Sandefur, 232 S.W.2d 111 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1950, writ ref'd). M M Cattle Company claims that even if Be......
-
Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Weed
...the same defense, should be sustained. Fox v. Dallas Hotel Co., 111 Tex. 461, 240 S. W. 517, and authorities there cited; Armour v. Morgan, 108 Tex. 417, 194 S. W. 942; Campbell v. Johnson (Tex. Com. App.) 290 S. W. 526; Gammage v. Gamer Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 213 S. W. 930. And if the reques......