Coosa Mfg. Co. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 04 June 1902
• Citation: 32 So. 232,133 Ala. 606
• Parties: COOSA MFG. CO. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

32 So. 232

133 Ala. 606

COOSA MFG. CO. v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 4, 1902

Appeal from circuit court, Calhoun county; John Pelham, Judge.

Action by Lon Williams against the Coosa Manufacturing Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

This was an action brought by the appellee, Lon Williams, against the appellant, the Coosa Manufacturing Company, to recover damages for personal injuries. The complaint contained nine counts. The court sustained the defendant's demurrers to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and eighth counts of the complaint, and the record recites that issue was joined on the pleas filed to the sixth, seventh, and ninth counts. The seventh count was in words and figures as follows "(7) The plaintiff claims of the defendant the further sum of twenty-five thousand dollars damages, for that whereas, to wit: On the night of the 11th of December, 1900 while defendant was engaged in operating its cotton mill at Piedmont, in Calhoun county, Alabama, manufacturing cotton the machinery in said cotton mill was driven and propelled by an engine, shafting, pulleys, and belts. Said shafting and pulleys were situated several feet above the floor and machinery in said cotton mill, and the only means or way to reach said shafts and pulleys to put belts on said pulleys was by the use of a ladder with one end resting on the floor of said cotton mill, and the other end leaning against the revolving shaft. At the time that plaintiff received the injury hereinafter complained of, it became necessary for a belt to be put on one of the pulleys on the revolving shaft against which the upper end of the ladder leaned, which shaft was running from 300 to 400 revolutions per minute; and plaintiff at the time he received the injury was in the employ of the defendant in the twisting and spooling department in said cotton mill, and a part of plaintiff's duties as such employé was to put the belts on these pulleys when necessary, and while running from 300 to 400 revolutions per minute at the time when said belt had to be put on; and while the plaintiff was engaged in his employment in defendant's said cotton mill, and it became necessary for one of the pulleys to have the belt put on it, plaintiff ascended said ladder to the shaft, against which said ladder was leaning, which was the only way of reaching the said shaft and pulleys provided by defendant for the purpose of putting on belts on said pulleys, and it was necessary at the time of the injury to plaintiff to put a belt on said pulley and was a part of plaintiff's duty, under his employment to put on said belt. That on reaching the shaft and pulley to be belted at the upper end of said ladder, plaintiff took hold of a pipe with his left hand to steady and support himself, and with his right hand raised said belt to put it on said pulley,--there being no way or means provided for standing while putting on said belt, except a round or step of said ladder; and, while plaintiff was so situated in said position, defendant's superintendent, J. H. Barlow, being present, directed one Howard Busby, an employé in defendant's said cotton mill, whose duty it was to obey said superintendent, J. H. Barlow, who was present, standing on the floor, to raise the belt with a pole, which belt plaintiff was putting on. The said Howard Busby obeyed said superintendent, J. H. Barlow, and jabbed the pole he had in his hand up against said belt, which caused said belt to lap and double around said revolving shaft, carrying plaintiff's right hand and arm with the belt around said shaft, breaking plaintiff's right arm in four places, and crushing the bone in his arm, and breaking his right hand, also, which caused great and permanent injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff avers that by reason of defendant's superintendent's (J. H. Barlow's) gross negligence in giving to said Howard Busby directions to raise said belt with the end of the pole he had in his hand while plaintiff was putting on the belt, and the said Busby obeying said superintendent's directions, which was his duty to do, and did obey said superintendent, J. H. Barlow, by raising said belt with said pole, which caused said belt to lap and catch plaintiff's right hand and arm, and carry it...