Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co. v. Vauble

• Decision Date: 06 October 1903
• Citation: 68 N.E. 195,31 Ind.App. 370
• Parties: INDIANA NATURAL GAS & OIL CO. v. VAUBLE.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

31 Ind.App. 370

68 N.E. 195

INDIANA NATURAL GAS & OIL CO.

v.VAUBLE.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Oct. 6, 1903.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Fulton County; Chas. Kellison, Special Judge.

Action by Henry Vauble against the Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.W. O. Johnson, Steis & Hathaway, and Holman & Stephenson, for appellant. Chas. E. Barrett and George Burson, for appellee.

ROBINSON, C. J.

Suit for personal injuries. The complaint avers: That appellant was engaged in laying a 10-inch pipe line, which was made up of large joints of pipe, weighing 800 to 1,000 pounds, and joined together at the ends with a coupling, requiring the assistance of a number of men. Appellee was in appellant's employ as a tongsman; his duty being, under the supervision of a superintendent and foreman, to use a pair of tongs, and assist in coupling together the joints of pipe, and laying the pipes after put together. That in laying the line across the Tippecanoe river a temporary trestle or staging had been constructed, upon which the joints were placed and fastened together preparatory to being lowered to the bed of the stream. That in the performance of this work, and under the direction of a superintendent, appellee and other employés working under the immediate direction of two foremen had carried onto the staging several joints of pipe, and placed them on blocking placed by appellant to receive them, and had fastened the joints together, when, in the opinion of the superintendent, it became necessary to remove a joint of the pipe, because defective; and, to do this, one of the foremen ordered appellee and others to move the pipe across to the other side of the staging. That while appellee and other employés were moving the pipe under the command and immediate direction of the foreman who had control and direction of the men, owing to the great weight of the joints of pipe resting on the blocking, and owing to the careless, negligent, defective, and insecure manner in which the blocking had been arranged and placed, such supports or blocking slipped, broke, and fell, letting the pipe and staging or blocking fall; and, in falling, the pipe and blocking fell upon appellee's foot and leg, injuring the same. That the fall of the pipe was because of the want of care, the ignorance and incompetence, of the foremen and superintendent under whose immediate supervision and direction the blocking and scaffolding for the support of the pipe had been placed, “and in so carelessly placing it that it was weak and insecure, and in carelessly and unskillfully directing and ordering said pipe moved while resting on such insecure and weak supports. That the insecure and weak nature of the blocking placed to receive said pipe, and upon which it rested, being at the time unknown to the plaintiff at the time it fell, but was known to the defendant's foremen, Carr and Hart, and to the superintendent, Nelson, or could have been known by them by the use of ordinary care and observation, and the fall of said pipe, and the consequent injury to the plaintiff, would not have occurred, but for the carelessness and negligence of the defendant's superintendent and foremen in attempting to remove said pipe while on such insecure supports. Wherefore the plaintiff avers that the accident and injury so as aforesaid sustained by him was caused by the fault and negligence of the defendant, its superintendent and foremen, as aforesaid, and without fault or negligence on his part.” The pleading charges that the injury occurred because of the weak and insecure condition of the blocking and scaffolding constructed by appellant's superintendent and foremen for the support of the pipe. It is not the...