Jones v. Ripley Stave Co.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1919
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 675
• Citation: 203 Ala. 60,82 So. 20
• Parties: JONES v. RIPLEY STAVE CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

82 So. 20

203 Ala. 60

JONES v. RIPLEY STAVE CO.

6 Div. 675

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 15, 1919

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; A.H. Alston, Judge.

Action by Rafe Jones against the Ripley Stave Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Nesmith & Hunt, of Birmingham, for appellant.

J.C Milner, of Vernon, for appellee.

THOMAS J.

On the trial the general affirmative charge was given at defendant's request in writing.

The plaintiff had declared in several counts, alleging that his injury and damage were incurred by reason and as a proximate consequence of the negligence of a superintendent, with knowledge of plaintiff's inexperience and danger of the work, in causing plaintiff to engage in such hazardous work "and negligently failed to warn and instruct him or see that he was warned and instructed concerning the danger thereof," etc.; that the defendant negligently failed to employ a sufficient number of men to perform said work of removing "the blocks or pieces of wood which fell from the timber as it was sawed, which blocks obstructed plaintiff's place of work and caused him to fall upon said saw"; and that the defendant failed to furnish the plaintiff reasonably safe machinery with which to perform such work, "in that said saw was not properly guarded as it should have been."

It was agreed by counsel "that plaintiff and defendant plead in short by consent any legal cause of action, any legal defense, and any legal replication."

Plaintiff as a witness in his own be half testified that--

"Mr. Bell [the superintendent] was around the mill while I [witness] was working, but he wasn't there regularly *** every day." That the superintendent saw witness "hauling bolts there." That "Mr. Bell instructed me [witness] to do the work," and "to go to work on the saw. He said, 'Rafe, Mr. Goff has got to go off after awhile, and I want you to take his place at the equalizer and Mr. Sam Hindman take your place rolling bolts.' *** He did not instruct me or warn me anything about the danger of that work."

This evidence was prima facie sufficient to show superintendence in Mr. Bell, and that while in the exercise of that superintendence he changed the work of the plaintiff from "hauling bolts" to "work on the saw," and that plaintiff was not warned "about the danger of that work" by such superintendent. It is not disputed that he received the injury complained of while engaged in said work nor that plaintiff "had been working around the mill about a month or so off and on; *** might have worked there part of two months; *** had never worked on a saw like that before," yet "knew it was dangerous"; and had been warned of the danger by his colaborer, S. Cribbs, on the morning of the injury, and that his injury was caused by...