Dill v. C. L. Smith Lumber Co

• Decision Date: 26 February 1912
• Docket Number: 18,862
• Citation: 57 So. 1006,130 La. 363
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: DILL et al. v. C. L. SMITH LUMBER CO

57 So. 1006

130 La. 363

DILL et al. v. C. L. SMITH LUMBER CO

No. 18,862

Supreme Court of Louisiana

February 26, 1912

Rehearing Denied March 25, 1912.

Appeal from Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Calcasieu Winston Overton, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Harriet E. Dill and others against the C. L. Smith Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, and suit dismissed.

Pujo &amp Moss, for appellant.

Gayle &amp Porter, for appellees.

OPINION

LAND, J.

James A. Dill, employed by the defendant as foreman of a loading crew, while riding in a caboose at the rear end of a log train, was killed by the crushing in of the front end of the caboose by a saw log which fell from the nearest skeleton car. The widow and minor children of the deceased sued for $ 25,000 damages. On the first trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs $ 15,000 damages. This verdict was set aside, and, on the second trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs $ 4,000 damages. The defendant appealed, and the plaintiffs have answered and joined in the appeal, praying that the amount of the judgment be increased to $ 15,000.

The petition charges that the defendant was negligent in not furnishing two toggle chains, or other suitable appliance, to bind the logs on the cars, and automatic couplers and brakes; and was also negligent in hauling the caboose full of men behind a loaded train of logs insecurely fastened.

Defendant filed an exception of no right or cause of action, which was overruled, and then answered with a general denial, pleading in the alternative contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the negligence of fellow servants.

After a careful review and consideration of the evidence, we find that the defendant was not negligent in using only one toggle chain to bind the saw logs. Many sawmill companies use only one toggle chain, some use two, and others use none. We also find that the defendant company was not negligent in failing to provide automatic couplers and brakes, which it seems are never used on skeleton log cars. A master is not required to furnish the best and safest appliances, but his obligation is met when he provides appliances that are reasonably safe and suitable for the purpose had in view. See Simon v. Black Lake Lumber Co., 127 La. 1071, 54 So. 354.

We find that a caboose attached immediately to the rear end of a loaded skeleton car in a moving log train is not a reasonably safe provision for the transportation of the employes of a sawmill company....