Huff v. Bear Creek Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 21 January 1918
• Docket Number: 19882
• Citation: 116 Miss. 509,77 So. 306
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: HUFF ET AL. v. BEAR CREEK MILL CO

77 So. 306

116 Miss. 509

HUFF ET AL. v. BEAR CREEK MILL CO

No. 19882

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 21, 1918

Division B

APPEAL from the circuit court of Green county, HON. R. M HEIDELBERG, Judge.

Suit by Hattie Moore Huff and another against the Bear Creek Mill Company. Affirmed and defendants appeal and reversed and remanded on plaintiff's appeal, for the purpose of assessing the amount of damages.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

E. W Breland and Stevens & Cook, for appellants.

Watkins & Watkins, for appellee.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, J.

The appellants brought suit against the appellee for the death of Jim Moore, a former husband of Hattie Moore Huff, and father of Earnest Moore. Jim Moore was employed as a laborer by the Bear Creek Mill Company, and was at the time of the injury resulting in his death engaged in assisting the engineer in repairing a pulley belt used in the operation of the mill. Moore was holding the belt and Browning, the engineer, was sewing it together with rawhide strings. The belt was over a revolving shaft, and Moore was sitting or standing on one side of the belt, and Browning was on the other, Moore holding the belt to keep it off the revolving shaft. The shaft was some three or three and one-half feet above the ground floor, and was revolving at the rate of between three hundred and three hundred and fifty revolutions per minute. Moore was either jerked upon the revolving shaft by the belt or by the clothing, it does not clearly appear which, but he was injured by having one of his arms torn off, the other arm broken, his back broken, and his legs broken. He lived some thirty days from the time of the injury, and died as a result of the injury.

There are four counts in the declaration. The first count charges the company with negligence in undertaking to repair the belt without shutting down the machinery; that if the machinery had been stopped the injury would not have occurred. The second count charges the company with negligence in sewing the belt while so close to the revolving pulley that the thongs or strings with which the belt was sewn became entangled with the revolving shaft and pulled the deceased upon it. The third count charges that it was negligence for the company to use a revolving shaft without having the same properly protected and inclosed; that if the shaft had been properly incased and protected the injury would not have been inflicted. In the fourth count it was charged that it was negligence on the part of the company not to have an engineer at the engine ready to close down the machinery in case of danger, or on discovering the perilous situation of the deceased.

It was pleaded by the defendant, in addition to the general issue that there was a settlement and release for the sum of five hundred dollars signed and executed by Hattie Moore Huff. There was also a plea that Earnest Moore was not the legitimate son of the deceased, but this plea was withdrawn at the trial and the legitimacy admitted; and also a plea by defendant that Moore's death was proximately caused by his own negligence, and that he was guilty of contributory negligence. The appellant Hattie Moore Huff denied that she signed the release with knowledge of its...