Darnell-Love Lumber Co. v. Boutall
| Decision Date | 13 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | 17255 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | DARNELL LUMBER CO. v. BONTALL |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Washington county. HON. MONROE MCCLURE, Judge.
Suit by Alfred Bontall against the Darnell Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Appellee filed an action against the appellant for damages due to injuries alleged by him to have been received while in the employ of the appellant as the result of the appellant's negligence in failing to provide safe machinery, or advise him of defects in the machinery upon which he was working at the time of the accident. The declaration alleges that he was directed by the appellant to repair and overhaul certain machinery attached to and being a part of a sawdust conveyor and that after making the necessary repairs and starting the machinery, his clothing was caught by a projecting set screw which held a collar on a revolving shaft, and that he knew nothing of the defectiveness of said set screw which was uncovered and projecting on said shaft and had not been warned by appellant of this defect, and that the revolutions of said shaft threw appellee, when his clothing became caught by the said screw, and caused him to become entangled in a pulley so that his body was drawn around the revolving shaft many times, breaking both legs and one arm, and severely injuring, and bruising, and tearing his muscles and various parts of his body, wrenching his back and crippling him for life, and that he was confined to a hospital for seventy-two days, suffering great pain as a result of said injuries. There was a verdict for appellee in the sum of twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars, from which an appeal was taken.
Affirmed.
Marsilliot & Chandler and Wynn, Wasson & Wynn, for appellant.
Hirsh Dent & Landau, M. M. Hartman and A. J. Rose, for appellee.
Briefly stated, appellant says that appellee was employed to inspect and repair the confessedly defective machinery of a sawmill, and that he was specifically instructed to watch the machinery while it was in motion, for the purpose of diagnosing and locating the defects; that appellant departed from his instructions and was injured.
Appellee contends that he was ordered to repair a certain specified defect in a certain machine; and while doing the work which he was ordered to do, he was caught by an unguarded set screw and...
To continue reading
Request your trial