Knox v. Exporters' Cotton Oil Company

• Decision Date: 03 July 1911
• Citation: 99 Miss. 880,56 So. 185
• Parties: HORRACE KNOX v. EXPORTERS' COTTON OIL COMPANY
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

56 So. 185

99 Miss. 880

HORRACE KNOX v. EXPORTERS' COTTON OIL COMPANY

Supreme Court of Mississippi

July 3, 1911

March 1911

APPEAL from the circuit court of Harrison county, HON. T. H BARRETT, Judge.

Suit by Horrace Knox against the Exporters' Cotton Oil Company. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's declaration he appeals.

The facts are as follows:

The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the court below, filed his declaration against the appellee as defendant. The court sustained a demurrer to the declaration and plaintiff appeals. The declaration and demurrer are as follows:

DECLARATION.

"Plaintiff Horace Knox, complains of the Exporters' Cotton Oil Company, defendant, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Georgia, and doing business in the state of Mississippi, with its domicile in the city of Gulfport Mississippi, in a plea of trespass on the case.

"For that, whereas, heretofore, to wit, on or about the 6th day of October, 1909, the said defendant corporation was engaged in the manufacture of cotton seed oil, and other cotton seed products, in the city of Gulfport, Harrison county Mississippi, and, in the conduct of said business, the defendant owned and operated a large factory in said city; that, on the aforesaid date, plaintiff was hired by defendant by the day at the wage of one dollar and sixty cents per day and was then and there the servant of defendant, and defendant was then and there the master of plaintiff, and, as such, it was incumbent on said master, the defendant, to furnish plaintiff, the servant, with a reasonably safe place in which to work, which it failed to do, as hereinafter to be set out.

"That on said last-named date, as such servant of defendant, it was plaintiff's duty to attend to and look after a certain part of defendant's machinery in said plant, known as the seed conveyor, and, on said date, plaintiff was engaged in attending to and looking after said seed conveyor; that said seed conveyor is a very dangerous piece of machinery, and it was then and there the duty of defendant to have said seed conveyor sufficiently guarded, so as to make the place immediately around said seed conveyor a reasonably safe place in which to work; that, in the operation of said seed conveyor, the method by which the seed was conveyed by said conveyor was as follows: Said seed conveyor consisted of a spiral shaped screw about feet long, which revolved on or near the floor of defendant's said plant; piles of cotton seed would be dumped by defendant on both sides of this screw, and said seeds would be taken up in the spiral like thread on this screw as they fell on said seed conveyor, and, by revolutions of said screw, said seeds, so taken up, would be carried along said screw a distance of feet to another department; that it was plaintiff's duty, as aforesaid, to attend to this seed conveyor, and to see that the seeds did not clog said screw as they were carried along said screw by the revolutions thereof, and to see that the seeds fell on the end of said screw properly, so that they would be seized by said screw, and in order to do this work plaintiff had to go backwards and forwards along said screw, and from one side of the screw to the other, as the seeds were piled on both sides of said end of the screw, where they were seized by the screw; and in order to go from one side of said screw to the other, as aforesaid, in attending to this work, plaintiff had to step over the spiral screw that seized the seeds as they fell and conveyed them, as aforesaid.

"That the defendant knew that, in order to properly perform his work, plaintiff had to do this act of stepping over said screw and going bacward and forward along said screw, and that the defendant knew that said piece of machinery was dangerous and required a protecting guard in order to make it reasonably safe as a place around which to work, yet, notwithstanding, defendant failed to place any sort of guard around said screw; and on the date aforesaid plaintiff was busy attending to the screw of said seed conveyor, when the seed was dumped down on the end of said seed conveyor, where it was to be taken up by said screw, and struck the plaintiff and knocked his leg against the screw, causing the plaintiff to be greatly bruised, maimed, and crippled, and laid up for a period of two weeks; that, had the defendant protected said revolving screw of said conveyor, as aforesaid, which was a very dangerous piece of machinery and required protecting by a guard, plaintiff would not have been injured, as aforesaid, as in that case his leg would have struck the guard, and not said screw.

"That defendant's negligence consisted in this: That said seed conveyor was dangerous machinery, and said defendant knew, or ought to have known by reasonable diligence, that it was dangerous machinery, and it was negligence in defendant not to protect said seed conveyor with a guard, so as to prevent any one from coming in contact with said screw, and that the failure of defendant properly to guard said screw of said seed conveyor was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries; that, at the time the plaintiff was injured, as aforesaid, he was working for defendant by the day, and was twenty-six years old, and was receiving one dollar and sixty cents per day for his work; that by reason of said injuries he was laid up for two weeks, under a doctor's treatment, and thereby incurred aa large doctor's bill; that said injuries, received, as aforesaid, through defendant's negligence, caused plaintiff to suffer great physical and mental pain, and that he continues to suffer therefrom, and is permanently injured, to his damage in the sum of two thousand dollars.

"Wherefore he brings this suit, and demands judgment against defendant in said sum of two thousand dollars."

DEMURRER.

"Comes the defendant, Exporters' Cotton Oil Company, by its attorneys, and demurs to the declaration herein filed against it, and for causes of demurrer assigns the following causes and grounds of demurrer, to-wit:

"(1) The declaration does not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against the defendant.

"(2) It appears from the allegations of the defendant that the supposed unguarded condition of said screw or conveyor, and the supposed danger therefrom alleged in the declaratioon, was as open, obvious, and apparent to plaintiff as to defendant, and that the supposed danger therefrom was one of the risks assumed by the plaintiff in accepting said employment, and that the supposed injuries therefrom were and are not injuries for which defendant is liable to plaintiff.

"(3) The supposed dangerous place to work, as alleged in the declaration, appears from the allegation thereof to have been open, obvious, and apparent to plaintiff when he accepted said employment, and at all times thereafter and at the time of...