Haynie v. Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 December 1909
• Docket Number: 1,744.
• Citation: 175 F. 55
• Parties: HAYNIE v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

175 F. 55

HAYNIE v. TENNESSEE COAL, IRON & R. CO.

No. 1,744.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 23, 1909

Will Denson, for plaintiff in error.

Walker Percy, for defendant in error.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge.

BURNS District Judge.

Plaintiff's intestate was at the time of his injury and death in the service of the defendant company, charged with the duty of repairing and maintaining the electric lights and apparatus connected with the operation of its steel plant located at Ensley in the state of Alabama. Upon the conclusion of the evidence, on motion of defendant, a verdict was directed in its favor which action is assigned as error.

The case is discussed in the brief of the defendant in error upon three propositions: First, that no negligence is shown upon the part of the defendant; second, that the evidence discloses that the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence; third, assumption of risk upon the part of deceased. Therefore the motion to direct a verdict was proper. Should the uncontroverted evidence, upon examination of the record, disclose no negligence upon the part of the defendant, then the first contention would have the support of the authorities. The question of contributory negligence however, is rarely for the consideration of the court. The determination of this question is almost uniformly for the jury. The facts do not invite a discussion of assumed risk. The matter for review arising from the record is not whether the evidence is sufficient to relieve the defendant of the charge of negligence; but does the testimony, upon the whole case, raise the issue of negligence upon the part of the defendant? In other words, would different minds reach different conclusions upon the status of the record here presented?

It is sufficient to say it has that effect. The deceased, in the language of two of the witnesses, was under the direction of the head roller, and while engaged in repairing an electric light the machinery was suddenly put in motion, without warning, thereby resulting in instant death to the employe. The testimony is that Haynie could readily have been seen and that the placing of the machinery in motion rendered his escape impossible. The evidence discloses that he was not seen by the head roller. This is not material. The law does not relieve from liability upon the ground that the peril of the deceased was not discovered. The party alleged to be at fault would not likely admit knowledge of the danger to the deceased. Such admission would fix absolutely the liability of defendant. If the defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, the situation of Haynie, the liability follows. The evidence shows the relative positions of the parties, the...