East Jellico Coal Co. v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 04 June 1902 |
| Citation | 68 S.W. 624 |
| Parties | EAST JELLICO COAL CO. v. STEWART. [1] |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Knox county.
"Not to be officially reported."
Action by James M. Stewart against the East Jellico Coal Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
James D. Black, for appellant.
Tinsley & Faulkner for appellee.
Appellee filed this action to recover of appellant for a severe injury suffered by him while in its service from being kicked in the face by a mule. The jury returned a verdict in his favor for $550. The facts of the case are these. Appellee had worked for the company in June, 1899, and had left its service. He returned in October, 1899, and was then put to driving a mule, getting out the loaded cars of coal from the mines, and taking the empties in as he returned. When the agent who employed him directed him to get the mule, he asked if it was safe, as he had heard that some of the mules kicked when he was at the mine before. The boss answered that it was safe. He took the mule and went to work, and during the day was kicked in the face by the mule, as above stated. The mule according to the proof introduced by him, was a dangerous and vicious mule. According to the proof for the defendant, the mule would kick when cut with a switch, or if approached from behind without warning, but was otherwise not dangerous It was also shown by the defendant that when appellee went to the stable to get the mule he was warned by several of the hands there that the mule was dangerous, and he answered, in substance, that he could manage him. This warning was repeated by several of the hands during the day before his injury. One man who had been working this mule offered to exchange mules with him. To all these appellee said, in substance, that he knew what he was about, and could manage him The court instructed the jury that if the mule was dangerous and vicious, and was known by the defendant to be such, or if by the use of ordinary care this might have been known by it or its servants, they should find for the plaintiff, but if he knew before he was kicked by the mule that it was dangerous and liable to kick and injure him, and after this voluntarily went on hauling with the mule, he assumed the risk, and they should find for the defendant.
We see no error in these instructions. The only instruction asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boatman v. Miles
... ... supra, § 299 a; Labatt, supra, § ... 1144; Carney Coal Co. v. Benedict, 22 Wyo. 362, 369, ... 140 P. 1013); nor generally, of ... 221, ... 181 P. 853; Gatliff Coal Co. v. Wright, ... supra; East Jellico Coal Co. v ... Stewart, 24 Ky. L. 420; 68 S.W. 624; Moore v ... ...
-
Central Lumber Co. v. Porter
...165 Ill.App. 504; Bowles v. Indiana R. Co., 62 N.E. 94; Milbu & D. Coal & Miling Co. v. Balla, 104 S.W. (Ind. Terr.) 860; East Jellico Coal Co. v. Steward, 68 S.W. 624. See also: Haneman v. Western Meat Co., 97 P. Hoover v. Empire Coal Co., 149 Ill.App. 258; Gola v. Mo., etc., Coal Co., 180......
-
Turner v. Richmond & R. R. Ry. Co
...and that he is not guilty of contributory negligence. The text is sustained by the following citations: East Jellico Coal Co. v. Stewart, 68 S. W. 624, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 420; McCready v. Stepp, 104 Mo. App. 340, 78 S. W. 671; George H. Hammond Co. v. Johnson, 38 Neb. 244, 56 N. W. 967; Knicke......
-
Brady v. Straub
... ... of the city of Louisville, unattended, in the vicinity of ... 468 East Brandeis street, where the plaintiff resides; and ... that on or about ... In ... Jellico Coal Co. v. Stewart, 68 S.W. 624, 24 Ky. Law ... Rep. 420, the action was ... ...