Carter Coal Co. v. Howard
| Decision Date | 09 March 1916 |
| Citation | 169 Ky. 87 |
| Parties | Carter Coal Company v. Howard. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Knox Circuit Court.
P. D. BLACK and BLACK, BLACK & OWENS for appellant.
J. D. TUGGLE and J. B. CAMPBELL for appellee.
In this action for damages for personal injuries by plaintiff, William Howard, against defendant, Carter Coal Company, plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $250.00. The defendant has moved for an appeal.
The defendant owns a tract of coal land in Knox County and operates a coal mine thereon. A portion of the land is covered by good merchantable timber. To get this timber prepared for market and for use in its mine, defendant contracted with O. P. Penland to cut and saw the timber into various sizes, for which he has paid a stipulated sum per thousand feet. It was necessary to haul the timber for a considerable distance. The company agreed to and did furnish Penland the material for building a track on the land and an engine and some cars for use in hauling the timber. Penland furnished his own saw mill, which was moved to the company's land. According to the company's evidence he exercised no supervision or control over the manner of doing the work, but it merely gave him a list of the various sized pieces of lumber it desired manufactured, and then inspected the pieces to see that they conformed to the specifications. Penland's assistants were employed by him and were subject alone to his control and direction. Plaintiff proved that he and Penland's other assistants were paid by the coal company and that the company's doctor looked after their injuries. The coal company, however, showed that this method of payment was resorted to merely as a matter of convenience to Penland, and that the sums so paid out by it to Penland's employes were credited on Penland's account for lumber manufactured and, in fact, paid by him. On cross-examination, Mr. Penland stated that he was working under the direction of the company's inspector, Mr. Smith, who gave him the lengths to cut and directed him how to saw the lumber, and that Mr. Smith was superior in authority to him.
The circumstances connected with the accident are as follows: Plaintiff was a fireman, and it was also his duty to couple cars to each other or to the engine, as the occasion required. In attempting to couple a car to the engine his finger was caught between the draw-heads and so mashed that the first joint had to be amputated. It appears that the lower portion of the draw-head in which plaintiff was attempting to place the link was broken out and an iron band had been put around the draw-head by Penland to hold the link in place. The band lacked three or four inches of being at the end of the coupler, and because of this fact it was necessary to hold the link a little longer than if the draw-head had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial