Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Townes

• Decision Date: 12 June 1906
• Citation: Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Townes, 148 Ala. 146, 41 So. 988 (Ala. 1906)
• Parties: DALLAS MFG. CO. v. TOWNES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

41 So. 988

148 Ala. 146

DALLAS MFG. CO. v. TOWNES.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 12, 1906

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1906.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; D. W. Speake, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Charles L. Townes against the Dallas Manufacturing Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Cooper & Foster, for appellant.

R. C Brickell, S. S. Pleasants, and Erle Pettus, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This action was brought by the appellee (plaintiff) against the appellant (defendant) to recover damages for an injury received by the plaintiff as an employé of defendant, while said plaintiff was engaged in the duties of his employment working in the cotton mill of defendant. The complaint originally contained four counts, but the second count was eliminated by demurrer, and the court gave the general charge in favor of the defendant as to the first count. The third count, which is copied in the statement of the case, alleges that injury, which resulted from plaintiff's hand being "caught between the clothing of the cylinders and the clothing of the slats of the carding machines," was caused by a defect in the condition of the ways, works, etc in the cardroom, in which plaintiff was working, "was lighted by electric lights, the electricity being generated upon the premises, and said electric appliances had become defective in some way unknown to this plaintiff, that they were totally insufficient to give proper light for the servants of defendant to discharge their duties after dark and at the time of the injury of, it was dark and said lights had gone out"--and then makes the statutory averments in regard to the person intrusted, etc. This count alleges that plaintiff was employed by defendant as a helper to aid in placing new carding machines. The fourth count alleges that he was employed "as a helper or assistant to those in charge of the setting up and preparing said carding machines," and that, while so engaged, he "attempted to pass between or around said carding machines, but stumbled over an obstacle which had been placed in the way between said machines by some person other than plaintiff," and thus caught his hand, and that he could not see the obstacle because of the failure of the defendant to furnish proper and sufficient lights in said cardroom, and that said lights had been out of order and in bad condition for some time, which fact had been made known to defendant or to its agents, and trusted with the supervision of its light machinery, and, although the defective condition of said lights was known to plaintiff, the defendant, through its agents, had been engaged in attempting to remedy said defect, and representing to plaintiff and its employés that said defects had been remedied.

It is shown, and not controverted: That an independent company, called the "Saco-Pattee Company," had entered into a contract selling certain machinery to defendants and agreeing "to furnish men to erect, clothe, and start" the machinery, and were engaged in that work, and plaintiff was employed by defendant as a helper to aid them, and placed under the orders of one Jackson, who was foreman in charge of the work under said Saco-Pattee Company. Defendant paid the wages of plaintiff, but charged it against said Pattee Company. That the obstacle over which plaintiff stumbled and fell was a door of a carding machine, which was lying on the floor. That just as plaintiff's foot came in contact with this door the lights went out and that whirled him around. That he grabbed at one of the standards on the side of the machine to break his fall, but missed it, and thus fell against one of the machines which had been put in motion by the Pattee Company people in setting up and testing the machinery. Plaintiff had not noticed this door there before. A little before this time the lights had "died down and then flared up." The plaintiff (who was the only witness to the accident) testified, also, that there had been trouble with the lights for some time prior to the injury; sometimes they would have trouble each day, and sometimes they would be all right for a week; that he had heard orders given to the electrician about the lights, and there had been numerous efforts made by Mr. Wise, the electrician, to remedy the lights; that he had seen them working on them some 10 or 15 times during the five months he worked there; that after said work said lights seemed to be all right; that the repairs were made on Friday or Saturday, and Mr. Wise assured them the lights were all right, and the accident occurred on the following Monday or Tuesday. It was in proof, also, that Mr. Vaughn, the cardroom boss, had been heard to complain to Mr. Massy, the superintendent of the electric plant, and that shortly thereafter the witness would see Wise and his assistants at work on them.

The witness Anglin testified that in his opinion the dying down and flaring up of the lights was owing to defective globes; that they had done so twice that day, and that he had seen Wise putting new globes on and putting new lights in that morning; also that White, boss of spinning room, had complained of the lights to Mr. Massy, superintendent; that at one time witness was sent by White to Massy to ask him to turn on the lights, and he replied that he would, and that there would be good lights before witness got back there.

The witness Massy, who was superintendent of defendant's company, testified...