Gulf, M. & N. R. Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 24 May 1926
• Docket Number: 25740
• Citation: 143 Miss. 890,108 So. 503
• Parties: GULF, M. & N. R. Co. v. BROWN. [*]
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

108 So. 503

143 Miss. 890

GULF, M. & N. R. Co. v. BROWN. ^[*]

No. 25740

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 24, 1926

Division B

1 COMMERCE.

Rights and obligations between employer engaged in interstate commerce and employee likewise engaged at time of injury are controlled by Federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S Comp. St. sections 8657-8665).

2. MASTER AND SERVANT. Rule requiring master to provide safe place is inapplicable where conditions relative to safety are constantly changing.

Rule requiring master to use ordinary care to provide safe place for servant to work is not applicable, where servant is employed in work of such nature that its progress is constantly changing conditions as regards increase or diminution of safety, as hazards thus arising are regarded as being ordinary dangers which are assumed by servant when he accepts employment.

3. MASTER AND SERVANT.

Federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. Comp. St., sections 8657-8665) abolished defense of assumption of risk only where there is violation of statute for employee's safety.

4. MASTER AND SERVANT.

Where reasonably safe place to work doctrine applies fellow-servant doctrine has no application because of rule that duty of master in that respect is nondelegable.

5. MASTER AND SERVANT.

Employee must show that employer had either actual or constructive notice of unsafe place causing injury.

6. MASTER AND SERVANT. Employer held not liable for injuries caused by unsafe place made in repairing wharf (Federal Employers' Liability Act [U. S. Comp. St. sections 8657-8665]).

In action under Federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. Comp. St., sections 8657-8665) for injuries received while employee was engaged in repairing wharf, employer held entitled to directed verdict, where it was shown that injuries resulted directly from defective repair construction in which employee was engaged.

HON. W. A. WHITE, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of George county, HON. W. A. WHITE, Judge.

Suit under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by R. Brown against the Gulf, Mobile & Northern Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and judgment rendered.

Reversed.

Briefs filed for appellant by Welch & Cooper and for appellee by O. F. Moss and Currie & Currie.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

Appellee brought this action in the circuit court of George county against appellant, for an injury received by him as an employee of appellant while repairing one of appellant's wharves in the city of Mobile, Ala., and recovered a judgment of five hundred dollars, from which appellant prosecutes this appeal.

The suit was brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (U. S. Comp. St., sections 8657-8665). Appellant was engaged in interstate commerce, and appellee at the time of his injury was likewise employed. The rights and obligations of the parties are therefore controlled by the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

Appellee was a member of one of appellant's bridge crews. At the time of his injury the bridge crew of which he was a member was engaged in repairing one of appellant's wharves at the port of Mobile. The wharf extended out into the water some distance. Appellant had two railroad tracks running out on this wharf. The wharf was provided by appellant for the unloading and loading of ship cargoes from and to appellant's cars. The wharves were constructed in the usual manner. The entire wharf was being repaired, including piers and decking. Appellee was not employed to do any particular part of the repairing. For a while he worked underneath the decking. At the time of his injury he was working on top of the decking. The decking is a floor on which appellant's tracks are laid. This floor is built of five-foot 3x9 timbers. One end of a piece of this decking when laid failed to catch onto the stringer as intended. The foreman in charge ordered appellee to roll a pier off of the wharf down into the water. While appellee was obeying this order he stepped on the piece of decking referred to near the end where it had failed to catch on the stringer. The result was his weight forced the other end of the decking up toward an upright position, thereby making a hole about 3x9 in size, through which his foot and leg went down, resulting in the physical injury for which he sued. Appellee was unaware that the piece of decking causing his injury had not caught on the stringer. As stated, it was his duty, and he had been engaged shortly before in repairing the decking as well as assisting in the general repair of the wharf.

Appellee's declaration, construed most strongly in his favor, sets out two grounds of recovery, namely, the failure on the part of appellant to furnish him a reasonably safe place to work, and the negligence of a fellow servant in laying the piece of decking in such a defective manner as to cause the injury.

The principal ground assigned and relied on for reversal is that the trial court should have granted appellant's request for a directed verdict. The question therefore is whether appellee's testimony made a case for the jury.

Appellant's position is that the obligation of the master to furnish his servant a reasonably safe place to work has no application to the facts of this case because appellee was employed, with others, to repair and make the very place safe, the unsafety of which caused his injury; that therefore he knew the place was unsafe and assumed the risk of such unsafety. The rule requiring the master to use ordinary care to provide a reasonably safe place for his servant to work is not applicable to a case in which the very work which the servant is employed to do is of such a nature that its progress is constantly changing the conditions as regards an increase or diminution of safety. The hazards arising thus are regarded as being ordinary dangers and risks of the employment which are assumed by the servant when he accepts the employment. 3 Labatt on Master and servant, section 1176, p. 3140; Armour v. Hahn, 111 U.S. 313, 4 S.Ct. 433, 28 L.Ed. 440; Kentucky Coal Co. v. Nance, 165 F. 44, 91 C.C.A. 82; Jacques v. Miami Ice Co., 73 Fla. 1193, 75 So. 788; Lumber Co. v. Miles, 135 Miss. 146, 99 So. 759; Cumberland Telephone Co. v. Cosnahan, 105 Miss. 615, 62 So. 824. In Kentucky Coal Co. v. Nance, supra, the court said:

"Manifestly, this duty of providing a safe place is dependent upon the character of the work to be done there. Hence, when that work is one of construction, reconstruction, destruction, or repair, the risks which are incident to such places and kinds of work are assumed by the servants there employed."

In Cumberland Telephone Co. v. Cosnahan supra, the same principle was declared in substantially the same language. In Lumber Co. v. Miles, supra, the plaintiff, a member of defendant railroad section crew, was engaged in repairing defendant's track. They were going to a certain part of the track to begin their repairs. They were to repair the whole of the track (a short logging road). In going to the place on a hand car where they were to begin repairs, the...