Coal Bluff Mining Co. v. Watts
| Decision Date | 16 March 1893 |
| Docket Number | 817 |
| Citation | 33 N.E. 662,6 Ind.App. 347 |
| Parties | COAL BLUFF MINING CO. v. WATTS |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Vigo Superior Court.
Judgment affirmed.
S. B Davis, J. C. Robinson, S. M. Reynolds, G. M. Davis and J. W Fesler, for appellant.
W Mack, D. W. Henry, J. D. Piety, J. E. Piety and B. Crane, for appellee.
Appellant 's contention is that the trial court erred in overruling its demurrer to the complaint and its motion for a new trial.
The substantial averments of the complaint are that the appellant (defendant below) is a corporation engaged in mining coal; that the plaintiff was in its employ, and was assisting in the work of mining coal; that while so engaged in the work assigned to him by the defendant's "bank boss," it became and was necessary for him to step into, and he did step into, one of the entrances or passage ways of said mine, and that while in said way a large quantity of slate and rock roofing fell upon him with great force, and crushed his body and limbs beneath its weight; that the appellant carelessly and negligently and willfully suffered and permitted the roofing in said entrance and passage way, at, in, and around the place where plaintiff was working and was injured, to be and become unsafe and dangerous; that the defendant had notice and knowledge of the insecure and dangerous condition of said roof at said place, before the rock and slate fell upon plaintiff, and carelessly, negligently, and willfully failed to secure said roof at said place by properly propping the same with timbers; that plaintiff, while so engaged in said entrance and passage way, was wholly ignorant of the unsafe and dangerous condition of said roof; that he sustained said injury without fault or negligence on his part.
Appellant insists that the averments of negligence consists only of "glittering generalities," that no specific or particular act of neglect is alleged, and that for this reason the complaint is insufficient.
When negligence is the gist of an action, the rules of good pleading require that the pleader shall state with clearness and precision the particular act of omission or commission, on which negligence is predicated. A general allegation that will admit of almost any proof is bad pleading. Jeffersonville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Dunlap, 29 Ind. 426; Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co. v. Chester, 57 Ind. 297; 1 Chitty's Pleadings, 232.
The pleading in this case, however, is not so general as to fall within these rules. The law imposes an obligation on the master or employer to keep the place where the servants work in a reasonably safe condition. Rogers v. Leyden, 127 Ind. 50, 26 N.E. 210; Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Hoodlet, 129 Ind. 327, 27 N.E. 741; Jenney Electric Light, etc., Co. v. Murphy, 115 Ind. 566, 18 N.E. 30.
In the light of this obligation resting on the operator of the mine the complaint alleges "that the defendant carelessly, negligently and willfully suffered and permitted the roofing in said...
To continue reading
Request your trial