Jackson Lumber Co. v. Lawford

• Decision Date: 12 February 1920
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 854
• Citation: 204 Ala. 83,85 So. 262
• Parties: JACKSON LUMBER CO. v. LAWFORD.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

85 So. 262

204 Ala. 83

JACKSON LUMBER CO. v. LAWFORD.

4 Div. 854

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 12, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; A.B. Foster, Judge.

Action by T.J. Lawford against the Jackson Lumber Company for damages for injuries suffered while in its employment. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W.O Mulkey, of Geneva, and A.R. Powell, of Andalusia, for appellant.

Powell Albritton & Albritton, of Andalusia, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Defendant (appellant) had overhauled and repaired its sawmill plant. A chain weighing about 100 pounds had been replaced and consigned to the junk pile. Plaintiff (appellee), whose business it was to help wherever help was needed, was told to throw it off a platform, which extended out from the main body of defendant's plant. The order was given by Goodman, a person in the service or employment of defendant to whose orders or directions plaintiff was bound to conform. The chain had been laid in a coil, and plaintiff's testimony was that--

He "picked it up and breasted it to where he could tote it and handle it, using both hands, and walked to the edge and then when he went to throw it off, the chain hung to his trousers, he supposed, and it pulled him off with it."

It seems probable from the testimony of other witnesses that a rivet in the chain, which had worked loose, caught in plaintiff's trousers. There was no theory of the evidence more favorable to the plaintiff than this. Plaintiff fell to the ground 20 to 25 feet below, and was seriously injured. In those counts which went to the jury plaintiff declared under subsection 1 of the Employers' Liability Act (section 3910 of the Code), ascribing his injury to a defect in the condition of the platform, or lumber and lath run, as it is denominated in the complaint, viz. there was no railing or guard around the outer edge of the platform; under subsection 3, ascribing his injury to the negligence of Goodman in giving his order; and under the common law, alleging that defendant had failed to exercise due care to furnish a safe place in which to work. The defense was the general issue, with leave to give in evidence any matter of confession and avoidance. Jury and verdict for plaintiff.

It is manifest that plaintiff's case required that he should prove that the absence of rail or guard was a defect, and that such absence was the proximate cause of his injury. The argument in support of the judgment is that the jury were properly allowed to find that due care required a guard rail around the outer edge of the platform, and, arguendo, it is said that, had there been such...