Coast Ship Co. v. Yeager

• Decision Date: 19 May 1919
• Docket Number: 20640
• Citation: 120 Miss. 152,81 So. 797
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: COAST SHIP CO. v. YEAGER

81 So. 797

120 Miss. 152

COAST SHIP CO. v. YEAGER

No. 20640

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 19, 1919

Division B

1. MASTER AND SERVANT. Injuries to servant. Warning servant. Latent dangers.

When an employee while working inside the hull of a ship near completion and in ignorance of the fact that boring with an auger was being done from the outside at the point at which he was working, was struck by an auger driven through the sides of the ship by employees on the outside, and the employer could feasibly have adopted and used a system for giving notice of the place of boring to those inside. In such case the employer was negligent in not doing so, though other ship builders used no such warning device.

2. MASTER AND SERVANT. Injuries to servant. Safe place to work.

Where a carpenter, working in the hull of a ship, is in constant danger of being struck by augers bored through the sides of the ship by employees on the outside, because his employers did not employ any device for giving notice of the place of boring to those on the inside. In such case there was a failure to provide him a safe place in which to work, and he can recover for injuries sustained on account of such failure.

HON. A E. WEATHERSBY, Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Harrison county, HON. A. E WEATHERSBY, Judge.

Suit by Benjamin Yeager against the Coast Ship Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

McDonald & Marshall, for appellant.

Mize & Mize, for appellee.

OPINION

STEVENS, J.

Appellant, a corporation engaged in shipbuilding at Biloxi, Miss., was the defendant in the court below, and prosecutes this appeal from a judgment for three thousand dollars awarded appellee, as plaintiff, who sues for personal injuries sustained by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant company. Plaintiff declared upon five counts in his declaration, one of which charges that he was not given a safe place to work, and one that a proper signal or warning was not given, and that the plaintiff was injured by the defendant's negligence in not maintaining a watchman or some warning device.

Defendant had proceeded with the construction of the ship to the extent that the ribs had been put up and the ship had been planked and partially ceiled. Appellee was foreman of the ship carpenters engaged in the work of ceiling the ship on the inside, and also had supervision of some men whose duties required them to select timbers on the outside and bring them on the inside. Working on the outside of the ship at the time of the injury was a squad of men known as "trunnel borers," engaged in the business of boring "trunnel holes" from the outside to the inside of the ship. The defendant had employed a Mr. Hance as general superintendent over all of the men. A Mr. Carter was foreman of the men engaged in boring, and is sometimes referred to as the "straw boss."

After the construction of the vessel had proceeded to a certain extent, the blocks which balanced the vessel on its keel and braced it along each side, were removed. The evidence shows that, after these blocks have been removed, the small vacant spaces formerly occupied by the blocks and termed "block spots" must be bored by the squad of men engaged in boring the "trunnel holes," and on the occasion complained of the drillers under Mr. Carter were going from spot to spot boring the necessary "trunnel holes." At this stage the men within the hull could neither see nor hear those on the outside; the ceiling and planking being carried high up, and the side of the ship being approximately thirty-six inches in thickness.

The plaintiff knew in a general way that the drillers were "boring out the block spots," but in performing his duties on the inside of the ship, and in stepping to the side of the ship to reach up and take a measurement with a rule, he placed his foot on one of the timbers opposite a "block spot," when a drill or auger suddenly came through the side of the ship, entered the ball of plaintiff's foot, and bored clear through the shoe and foot, causing the plaintiff to lose his toe, one or more bones of the foot, and otherwise inflicted painful and permanent injuries. The boring was done under the immediate supervision of Carter, the straw boss; but the general superintendent was present on the yard, and directed Carter to bore out the "block spots." The evidence discloses that plaintiff, three days prior to the injury had been struck by a drill on the same foot, and that he complained about it to the general superintendent.

Issue was joined, much testimony taken for the plaintiff and the defendant, and a verdict was returned by the jury in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount sued for. There was only one instruction granted the plaintiff on the merits of the case, and that related to the obligation of the defendant to furnish plaintiff with a reasonably safe place in which to work.

Counsel for appellant, in a strong brief, contend that the defendant was entitled to a peremptory instruction, and that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. It is contended that the testimony shows no negligence whatever in that appellant had adopted the usual and customary devices and system for the construction of vessels and that its methods, system, and place of work were those permitted by the safety rules of the United States government in the various shipyards of this country. It is further contended that in this case the place of work constantly underwent changes as the construction progressed, and for that reason that the doctrine of safe place to work has no application.

This appeal submits for our determination the general question of liability, whether there is any negligence at all contributing to the injury complained of. In testing the propriety and legality of the judgment, it is important to...