Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Timmons

• Decision Date: 15 March 1907
• Citation: 100 S.W. 337
• Parties: ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. TIMMONS ET AL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

100 S.W. 337

ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. v. TIMMONS ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 15, 1907

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lyon County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Shirley Timmons against the Illinois Central Railroad Company and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant railroad company appeals. Affirmed.

Trabue Doolan & Cox, Darby & Gates, E. H. Jones, and J. M Dickerson, for appellant.

Hendrick & Miller, for appellees.

NUNN J.

This appeal is from a judgment of $600 in favor of appellee for injuries received by the negligence of appellant's servant, superior in authority to him, while in the alleged employment of appellant. Appellee was injured while aiding in cleaning out a boiler belonging to appellant, situated at or near its bridge on the Cumberland river. His injuries were very severe. He was scalded from his hips down to and including his feet. The amount of the verdict is small, and hardly sufficient to compensate him for his injuries and mental physical suffering. The evidence was conflicting on the questions as to whether or not the appellee was in the employment of appellant, and as to contributory negligence on his part. These questions were submitted to the jury, and it found against appellant on both propositions.

The main question upon which appellant asks a reversal is whether or not the person who employed appellee to help clean the boiler had the authority in that matter to act for appellant. The appellant contends that he did not. The testimony introduced upon this point, in substance, is as follows: J B. Chandler, who was a defendant in this action, and against whom a joint judgment was rendered with the Illinois Central Railroad Company, was the foreman of appellant, and engaged the services of appellee frequently during the year next preceding the date on which he was injured. For some time after he first employed appellee to work on the bridge, and other work connected therewith, Chandler paid him personally and for two months of the time appellee received his pay from the pay car of appellant, and after that, to the time of his injury, he was paid by Chandler, as first stated. Chandler testified that he did not have authority to employ appellee, and also stated that he did not employ him on the day he was injured. Appellee testified that he was employed by the defendant J. B. Chandler to do all the labor he performed for appellant during the year mentioned, and the manner of employment was the same when Chandler paid him as when he was paid from the pay car, and that he was engaged the afternoon before his injury to keep watch on the bridge, which he did to the hour of midnight, and was then engaged for the next day, and was aiding in the cleaning of the boiler, under the directions of the foreman, Chandler. He stated that he was about 20 years old; that he had no...