Bates-Rogers Const. Co. v. Dunn

• Decision Date: 17 May 1906
• Citation: 93 S.W. 1032
• Parties: BATES-ROGERS CONST. CO. et al. v. DUNN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

93 S.W. 1032

BATES-ROGERS CONST. CO. et al. v. DUNN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 17, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by George Dunn against the Bates-Rogers Construction Company and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

J. M Dickinson, Trabue, Doolan & Cox, J. W. Bush, and C. C Crassham, for appellants.

Hendrick Miller & Marble, for appellee.

PAYNTER J.

Appellee was employed by the appellant, and while discharging his duties as such workman he received an injury for which a verdict and judgment for $500 was awarded.

It is averred in the petition that appellee was a laborer on a bridge which was being constructed by the appellant; that on the night of November 16, 1904, he was ordered by the defendant to go upon a pier and carry coal to the front of the furnace of an engine that had just been erected; that he had not worked at that place before, and was unacquainted with the place, situation and surroundings; that upon reaching the place he was required by appellant's foreman to carry coal from a coal pile on a barge and deliver same in buckets through an opening in the side of the wall or rim of a cofferdam to another person who was to receive it and deposit it in front of the furnace of the engine standing on a platform, where steam was being raised. It is further averred that when he began to convey the coal from the front of the furnace where the coal pile was located on the barge where there was light, to the edge or rim of said cofferdam where he was told to carry it, he found that it was necessary to pass through a very narrow space between two large fly wheels, one of which was in operation and revolving; that the space was unlighted, dark and dangerous; that appellant permitted it to remain in that dangerous, defective and unlighted condition; that he, appellee, objected to working at that place without a light, but that the foreman in charge of the work assured him that it was safe to work, and that he would at once procure a light for his use at that place, and for him to proceed with the carrying of the coal; that the foreman failed to return with the light, and that he proceeded with the work in a cautious and diligent manner, and was returning from carrying a bucket of coal to get another when his clothing was caught in the end of a shaft which projected from the center...