Goodyear Yellow Pine Co. v. Clark

Decision Date06 June 1932
Docket Number30048
Citation142 So. 443,163 Miss. 661
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesGOODYEAR YELLOW PINE CO. et al. v. CLARK

(Division B.)

1. MASTER AND SERVANT.

Evidence established that watchman employed to wet down fire negligently permitted fire to develop into dangerous proportions, precluding recovery for injuries to eyes in fighting fire.

2. MASTER AND SERVANT.

Master of watchman employed to wet fire held not responsible for safety of work place selected by employee.

HON. J Q. LANGSTON, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Pearl River county, HON. J. Q LANGSTON, Judge.

Action by H. F. Clark against the Goodyear Yellow Pine Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and judgment rendered for defendant.

Reversed, and judgment here for appellant.

L. L. Tyler, of Picayune, J. C. Shivers (of Parker & Shivers), of Poplarville, and Stevens & Heidleberg, of Hattiesburg, for appellants.

The plaintiff was engaged in remedying a dangerous situation. According to his theory, if the screen had not had a hole in it, the fire would not have blown toward the sawmill, and there would have been no occasion for him having to wet the fire down. The thing which made it necessary for him to be employed in the particular occupation at which he was employed at the time of his alleged injury was the existence of the hole. The negligent existence of the hole was not the cause of the injury, but it was the cause of his employment.

Hooks v. N. O. & N.E. R. R., 111 Miss. 743, 72 So. 147.

The physical facts, show that there was no necessity for the plaintiff's standing within fifty feet of the fire. It is undisputed that there was ample other hose around the sawmill that could have been obtained if the two sections were not sufficiently long to enable the plaintiff to get to a place of safety in spraying water on the fire.

Rawls & Hathorn, of Columbia, and Hathorn & Williams, of Poplarville, for appellee.

It was negligence on the part of appellants to locate the slab pit so close to the mill that it was necessary to screen the pit off to prevent sparks and live coals of fire from setting the mill on fire, and then knowingly to permit this necessary fire screen to become in such bad state of repair that these sparks and live coals of fire would blow from the slab pit in such quantities as to constitute a peril to the mill whereby an emergency was created that required appellants to send appellee and his fellow employees into this place of known danger to protect said property against said peril so created by the negligence of appellants; and then to order appellee and his fellow employees to go into this place of known danger, so created by appellants, to protect said property from said peril.

Legan & McClure Lumber Co. v. Fairchild, 124 So. 336, 18 R. C. L., pages 654-655, pars. 147 and 148 and notes; Berg v. Great Northern R. Co., 70 Minn. 272, 73 N.W. 648; Liming v. Illinois C. R. Co., 81 Iowa 246, 47 N.W. 66; Pullman Palace Car v. Laack, 143 Ill. 242, 18 L.R.A. 215, 32 N.E. 285; Rexter v Starin, 73 N.Y. 601; Wasmer v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 80 N.Y. 212, 36 Am. Rep. 608; Penn. Co. v. McCaffrey, 139 Ind. 430, 38 N.E. 67, 29 L.R.A. 104.

It is the duty of the master to exercise reasonable care to furnish his servants with reasonable proper and safe means and appliances with which to work.

Cotton Mills Prod. Co. v. Oliver, 121 So. 111; Hercules Powder Co. v. Tyrone, 124 So. 74; Godley v. Hines, 86 So. 289; Nelms & Blum Co. v. Fink, 131 So. 817; Hardy v. Turner-Farber Love Co., 101 So. 489; 39 C. J. 308, 326, 331, 359, 450, 1082, 3261, 331, 359, 450, 1082; Wilbe Lumber Co. v. Calhoun, 140 So. 680; Lumber Co. v. Crane, 99 So. 753; Walker v. Nix, 76 So. 143.

The universal rule is that where a servant exposes himself to danger in obedience to an order of the master, and the master knew or by the exercise of reasonable care could have known that obedience to such order would result in injury to the servant, and the servant is injured, in an effort to comply with the order, the master is liable.

Choctaw Railroad Company v. Jones, 92 S.W. 244; 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 837; Illinois Steel Company v. McFadden, 63 N.E. 671, 89 A. S. R. 319; Noble v. Roper Lumber Company, 65 S.E. 622, 134 A. S. R. 974; City of Owensboro v. Gabbert, 122 S.W. 178, 135 A. S. R. 462; Shortel v. City of St. Joseph, 24 A. S. R. 317; Stephens v. Railroad Company, 9 A. S. R. 336; Sawyer v. Rumford Falls Paper Company, 60 A. S. R. 260; 39 C. J., pars. 596, 597, 745, 1351, 1370, 1382; 18 R. C. L., par. 1496, p. 655; Seifferman v. Leach, 138 So. 563; Hardy v. Lumber Company, 101 So. 489; Coal & Coke Ry. Co. v. Deal, 231 F. 604; Moline Plow Co. v. Anderson, 19 Ill.App. 417, 420; Matthews v. N. O. & N.E. R. R. Co., 93 Miss. 325.

It manifestly appears that the master was negligent when he commanded appellee to use a hose which was too short to permit him to stand out of the path of the wind carrying the sparks that put out his eye while wetting down the slab pit; and this is so, even though other and suitable hose might have been available at the time.

39 C. J. 794, 795, 796, 1201 and 1202; Maslek v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 160 N.E. 523; Mott v. Davis, 111 S.E. 603, 90 W.Va. 613; Topore v. Boston, etc. R. Co., 100 A. 153, 78 N.H. 311.

The mere choice by a servant of an unsafe appliance, passageway or place to work, or of an unsafe method of performing the task in hand, is not of itself sufficient to charge him with contributory negligence as a matter of law.

The question as to the negligence of the servant in assuming an unsafe position for the performance of his work is one for the jury, on conflicting evidence.

39 C. J., pars. 1382 and 1383.

It was a question for the jury to determine whether or not appellants were negligent in requiring appellee to use the short water hose that required appellee to stand in an unsafe place while performing the duties assigned him.

Fountain v. J. J. Newman Lumber Company, 117 Miss. 282, 78 So. 152; Cotton Mill v. Oliver, 121 So. 111, 153 Miss. 362; Central Lumber Company v. Potter, 139 Miss. 66, 103 So. 506.

Argued orally by Rowland W. Heidelberg, for appellant, and E. B. Williams, and S. V. Hathorn, for appellee.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court awarding H. F. Clark eight thousand dollars for an alleged personal injury resulting in the loss of his eyesight.

The declaration was filed on January 14, 1930, while the alleged injury is said to have occurred on January 18, 1925.

The plaintiff, Clark, appellee here, during 1925, and until 1928, was employed as a watchman at the plant of the appellant. Among other things, his duty was to watch the slab pit in which refuse of the mill was being constantly burned and to wet down the fire whenever, from any cause, it became apparently dangerous, or there was danger of setting fire by means of sparks, etc., being blown to other parts of the mill property.

This slab pit was situated slightly west of north above the mill of appellant, and between the slab pit and the mill there was a fire plug from which water was procured and transmitted by means of hose, to wet down the fire in the slab pit.

There were other employees engaged in the service of the appellant company who also seemed to have like duties with the appellee, Clark. On the night of the injury in question according to the plaintiff's testimony, one Frisby, who was a foreman over the appellee, came by a building situated upon the premises, and found the appellee and other employees had taken shelter from the wind, it being a cold night and the wind blowing strongly from the north, and the fire had grown to dangerous...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Stricklin v. Harvey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 28, 1938
    ......608] Anderson v. McGrew, 122. So. 492, 154 Miss. 291; Goodyear Yellow Pine Co. v. Clark, 142 So. 443, 163 Miss. 661; Eastman-Gardiner. ......
  • Gow Co., Inc. v. Hunter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • May 11, 1936
    ......714; Callan. v. Bull, 113 Cal. Rep. Pomeroy 603; Goodyear Yellow. Pine Co. v. Clark, 163 Miss. 661, 142 So. 443;. Jefferson v. ......
  • Mississippi Utilities Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 13, 1933
    ......Smith was. guilty of contributory negligence. . . Goodyear. Yellow Pine Co. et al. v. Clark, 142 So. 443, 445;. Finkbine Lumber ......
  • Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Jefferson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 27, 1939
    ...... Hines Lumber Company v. Dickinson, 155 Miss. 764,. 125 So. 93; Goodyear Yellow Pine Lumber Company et al. v. Clark, 163 Miss. 661, 142 So. 433; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT