Dimmick Pipe Co. v. Wood

• Decision Date: 19 January 1904
• Parties: DIMMICK PIPE CO. v. WOOD.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

35 So. 885

139 Ala. 282

DIMMICK PIPE CO. v. WOOD.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 19, 1904

Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; Wm. W. Wilkerson, Judge.

Action by L. E. Wood against the Dimmick Pipe Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action was brought by the appellee, L. E. Wood, to recover damages for the loss of the services of his son, a boy 14 years of age, by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant. The cause of action, as averred in the complaint and the facts of the case necessary to an understanding of the decision on the present appeal, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the court, at the request of the plaintiff, gave to the jury among others, the following written charge: "(9) Even though the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff knew, or had reason to know, that his son, Mitchell Wood, was employed to pitch sand in defendant's pipeworks, and consented thereto, unless the jury further find from the evidence that plaintiff knew that the said Mitchell Wood, as a part of his duties, would be required to roll sand in a wheelbarrow across the said pipeworks, the verdict must be for the plaintiff, if the jury believe the work of rolling said wheelbarrow of sand was more dangerous than the work of pitching sand." To the giving of this charge the defendant separately excepted, and also separately excepted to the court's refusal to give the following charge requested by it: "If you believe the evidence, you must render your verdict in favor of the defendant." There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, assessing his damages at $600. The defendant made a motion for a new trial upon the ground that the damages assessed by the jury were excessive, that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the evidence in the case, and that the court erred in refusing to give the general affirmative charge requested by the defendant. This motion was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.

Bradley & Morrow and Walker, Tillman, Campbell & Walker, for appellant.

Moore &amp Dickinson, for appellee.

SHARPE J.

As stated in the complaint, the cause of this action is that the defendant, being engaged in the operation of castiron pipeworks, without the consent of...