Broadfoot v. Shreveport Cotton Oil Co
| Decision Date | 14 December 1903 |
| Docket Number | 14,813 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | BROADFOOT v. SHREVEPORT COTTON OIL CO |
Rehearing denied January 18, 1904.
Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; Alfred Dillingham Land, Judge.
Action by R. M. Broadfoot against Shreveport Cotton Oil Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
William Henry Wise, Edward Beverly Herndon, and Clegg & Quintero, for appellant.
Thatcher & Welsh and Thigpen & Foster, for appellee.
BREAUX J. LAND, J., recused, having been judge below.
This is an action brought by plaintiff to recover damages for injuries received by plaintiff while at work at defendant's oil mill in January, 1902.
The amount of damages claimed is $ 10,000.
Plaintiff is a carpenter and millwright, and was employed by defendant to work at its oilmill.
The foreman of the screenroom and an employe of defendant company asked plaintiff to assist him in pulling a belt on a pulley. This pulley was near the east wall of the screenroom.
It was while at this work of pulling on the belt that his clothing was caught by the fast revolving shaft on the "safety collar" on the shaft, and he was taken from the prop or stay on which his feet rested, and was made to whirl around the fast revolving shaft a number of rounds, and then hurled off a distance of about 15 feet.
The prop or stay just before mentioned on which he was standing, was about 12 feet above the floor of the room.
The superintendent having asked the plaintiff to put the gauges on the oil tank, he was on his way to comply with the direction when called upon by the employe in charge of the screenroom.
The evidence shows it is not unusual to call upon some one to assist in putting on this belt. The weight of the testimony shows that the superintendent had authorized this employe in charge of the screenroom to call plaintiff when necessary to assist him in putting on the belt.
One of the flanges of the "safety collar" was broken just opposite the set screw which was in the safety collar.
The function of the safety collar is to protect persons from being caught by the set screw, the head of which was about one-half inch above the surface of the ring in which is this screw.
The foregoing is a statement of the facts upon which plaintiff bases his action.
The defendant sought to meet the issues by contending that the flange of the safety collar was not broken, and, further, that if it was broken the workmen upon whom it devolved to put on the belt were not exposed to greater danger by the asserted break in this flange. Defendant's contention, further, is that if there was negligence on its part, which it does not admit, it was, it says, the negligence of a fellow servant, and that, in addition, plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $ 2,000. The trial judge refused to grant a new trial. From the verdict and judgment, defendant prosecutes this appeal.
Before this court, appellee answered the appeal, and asked for an increase of the damages allowed him by the lower court.
Before taking up the issues of law, we should state, as to the facts, that, shortly after the accident, plaintiff was taken to the Sanitarium at Shreveport; physicians were called, to whom he gave some account of the accident, and stated that his clothing was caught in the screw of the safety collar.
That he was pulling the belt from the wrong side of the shaft, and that he was doing the work for some other man.
On the trial of the case it was explained by the testimony that, in pulling the belt on the pulley, the plaintiff and those who were with him did just as others had done frequently in putting on belts.
It is also a fact brought out by the testimony that the plaintiff and a negro helper were on a ladder some 10 feet from the floor. The manager of the screenroom, upon whom it more particularly devolved to put on the belt, was standing on the floor of the screenroom.
Plaintiff failed to put on the belt from the position in which he was on the ladder. He left it; passed over the belt to or up to the wall. The negro helper said to him that there was danger.
After he had thus crossed the belt, plaintiff had one foot on a plank, and the other on a piece of board lashed to the wall.
The contention on the part of defendant here is that the position in which plaintiff placed himself to work was hazardous, and that there was no occasion to thus expose himself. The testimony further shows that plaintiff had on, when his clothing was caught by the machinery, a workman's overall.
S. H. Gamble, the employe who had charge of the screenroom, and to whom we have before referred, testified that the superintendent of the mill had instructed him to call in an employe when necessary to put on the belt; under that instruction, he called on plaintiff and others to assist him. He states that plaintiff stood where others stood before and after the accident in putting on the belt; that the safety collar was broken -- there was a break in one of its flanges -- and if any one went against it there was danger that the screw would catch the clothes of any one placing himself too near for safety; that it made the work of putting on the belt more hazardous; that the purpose of a flange was to protect any one going near the shaft.
The smooth surface of the shaft will also catch the clothing of any one standing too near, but that the broken flange made it more dangerous.
The testimony of this witness is corroborated by a number of others. The weight of the testimony impresses us as sustaining his statement as a witness.
From this state of facts, it devolves upon us to...
To continue reading
Request your trial