Kight v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co

• Decision Date: 29 October 1917
• Docket Number: 22135
• Citation: 142 La. 357,76 So. 799
• Parties: KIGHT v. VICKSBURG, S. & P. RY. CO
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

76 So. 799

142 La. 357

KIGHT v. VICKSBURG, S. & P. RY. CO

No. 22135

Supreme Court of Louisiana

October 29, 1917

Rehearing Denied November 26, 1917

Wise Randolph, Rendall & Freyer, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Otis W Bullock, of Shreveport, S. P. Jones, of Marshall, and T. P Harte, of Douglas, Ariz., for appellee.

OPINION

PROVOSTY, J.

Plaintiff was one of a gang of men in the employ of the defendant company doing repair work on its railroad bridge across Red river at Shreveport. The head of a maul that was being used some 15 feet above him slipped from the handle, and dropped upon him, striking him on his head. This maul head was of iron, and weighed 10 pounds; the handle was of wood. Usually for securing a maul's head to the handle a wedge is driven into the end of the handle that is inserted into the head so as to enlarge it and thereby make it fit tight. This had not been done in the present case, and plaintiff charges this omission as negligence on the part of the defendant company. There can be no doubt that the charge is well founded; nor of the liability of the defendant, since the employer must furnish the employe safe tools to work with. Something is said about this defect having been apparent to the workman using the maul, and of the supposed negligence of this workman in using this maul in that condition being imputable to plaintiff, but, admittedly, the case comes under the federal Employers' Liability Law and hence this supposed negligence of a fellow workman is not a defense. The main defense in the case is that plaintiff was not as seriously injured as he claims; that he remained unconscious but a little while recovering consciousness before removal to the sanitarium; that the skull was not fractured, and the brain not affected. The decided preponderance of the evidence shows that plaintiff did so recover consciousness. There was a scalp wound, but no sign of fracture. As to whether there was inner lesion the medical men differ. What the decision would have to be if the case depended solely upon the testimony of the medical men it would be hard to say. This testimony does show, however, that a blow on the head producing unconsciousness is a very serious matter; that it may have, and generally has, the effect of sooner or later bringing about epilepsy, insanity, or imbecility -- singly or in combination. The evidence, outside of the medical, shows, we think, that serious...