Lane Bros. Co v. Seakford
| Decision Date | 22 November 1906 |
| Citation | 55 S.E. 556,106 Va. 93 |
| Parties | LANE BROS. CO. v. SEAKFORD. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
A declaration must state the facts relied on as constituting the cause of action with sufficient certainty to be understood by defendant, the jury and the court.
A declaration, in an action for personal injury, which alleges the relation of master and servant between plaintiff and defendant, and that plaintiff was operating a hoisting engine in defendant's work, which states the duty of defendant to exercise ordinary care to furnish and maintain for plaintiff a reasonably safe place for doing the work, and which avers that unskilled servants of defendant pieced dynamite near where plaintiff was working and that the dynamite caught fire, exploded and injured plaintiff in a manner described, sufficiently states a cause of action.
An instruction in an action against an employer for injuries received by an employe that it was the duty of the employer to "use ordinary and all reasonable care" to furnish and maintain a reasonably safe place for the employe in which to work, etc., and if the employer failed to exercise "ordinary and all reasonable care" in the performance of any one or all of the duties specified, and such failure was the proximate cause of the injury, the jury must find a verdict for the employe, limits the duty of the employer to the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care, and is not misleading as leading the jury to suppose that an unqualified duty rested on the employer to discharge the several duties mentioned.
Error to Circuit Court, Albemarle County.
Action by W. L. Seakford against the Lane Bros. Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
O'Flaherty & Fulton and Robert F. Leedy, for plaintiff in error.
Cabell, Talley & Cabell and Duke & Duke, for defendant in error.
HARRISON, J. W. L. Seakford brought this action to recover of Lane Bros. Co. damages for injuries received by him, which it is alleged were occasioned the plaintiff by the negligence of the defendant. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, which the circuit court refused to set aside. To the judgment rendered upon that verdict this writ of error was awarded, upon the petition of Lane Bros. Co.
A demurrer to the declaration, and each count thereof was overruled. This action of the court is assigned as error.
The purpose of a declaration is to inform the defendant of the nature of the demand made upon him. The facts must be stated with sufficient certainty to be understood by the defendant who has to answer them; by the jury, who have to enquire into their truth; and by the court, which has to render the judgment. Wood v. American Nat. Bank, 100 Va. 306, 40 S. E. 931; Virginia, etc., Wheel Co. v. Harris, 103 Va. 708, 49 S. E. 991.
In the case of Hortenstein v. Virginia-Carolina Ry. Co., 102 Va. 914, 47 S. E. 996. which is relied on by the defendant, the conclusion was reached, that "in actions for a tort, the declaration must state sufficient facts to enable the court to say, upon demurrer, whether, if the facts stated are proved, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover."
Tested by these familiar principles, we are of opinion that the declaration, in the case before us, states a good cause of action. The relation between the plaintiff and the defendant is shown to be that of master and servant, it being averred that the defendant was a contractor engaged in the work of building railroads, etc., excavating, blasting, and using dynamite for such purposes; while the plaintiff is averred to be an employe of the defendant, 18 years of age, deficient in mental capacity, and engaged in operating a hoisting engine used in the defendant's work. The duty of the defendant company is distinctly averred to be to exercise ordinary care to furnish and maintain for the plaintiff a reasonably safe place for doing the work assigned him, and to exercise the same care to see that the men employed by it are careful, skillful, and competent The breach of these duties Is fully set forth, as well asthe injuries resulting from the failure of the defendant to perform such duties. The negligence, which was the breach of the duty alleged, is averred to be that while the plaintiff, in the exercise of ordinary care on his part, was engaged in operating the hoisting engine, the defendant, through its agents and servants, negligently placed dynamite, a highly destructive explosive, dangerously close to a Are which had been built near the engine by the plaintiff for warming his feet, for the purpose of thawing it, and had carelessly left the same there unattended, and not watched for a long period of time; and that so placing and leaving such dynamite exposed to the Are were dangerous, negligent, careless, and wrongful acts and conduct on the part of the defendant and its employes. After reciting that dynamite Is a highly dangerous explosive, requiring expert, trained and careful men to properly thaw and use the same, and that the servants, foreman and agents of the defendant were untrained, inexperienced, and unskilled, and averring that the defendant negligently failed to instruct its servants how to thaw, handle, and use dynamite, and carelessly failed to warn plaintiff of the danger, on the contrary told him there was no danger. It is declared that the defendant knew these things, but not regarding its duty in that behalf, did not use due diligence and proper and ordinary care to furnish to and keep and maintain for the plaintiff a reasonably safe place for his work, and did not use due diligence and proper care to see that careful and competent men were employed by it; but, on the contrary, had wholly neglected and failed to do so, and that such negligent failure was the proximate cause of the accident and injury to the plaintiff, which is set out to be that the dynamite caught Are, exploded, and injured the plaintiff in the manner...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Ry. Co v. Johnson's Adm'x
...observance." Wright v. Southern Ry. Co., 101 Va. 36, 42 S. E. 913, Driver v. Southern Ry. Co., 103 Va. 650, 49 S. E. 1000, and Lane Bros. v. Seakford, 106 Va. 93. 55 S. E. 556, are in harmony with the great weight of authority on the subject and support the principle above enunciated. In th......
-
Blackwood Coal & Coke Co v. James
...Hortenstein v. Virginia-Carolina Ry. Co., 102 Va. 914, 47 S. E. 996; Wheel Co. v. Harris, 103 Va. 708, 49 S. E. 991; Lane Bros. Co. v. Seakford, 106 Va. 93, 55 S. E. 556. Bill of exception No. 1 is to the action of the circuit court in permitting the witness Snodgrass, who was called on beh......
-
Powhatan Lime Co v. Whetzel's Adm'x
...Wright v. Southern Ry. Co., 101 Va. 36, 42 S. E. 913, Driver v. Southern Ry. Co., 103 Va. 650, 49 S. E. 1000, and Lane Bros. v. Seakford, 106 Va. 93, 55 S. E. 556. See, also, comprehensive note to Southern R. Co. v. Johnson, supra, 111 Va. 490, 69 S. E. 323, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 81. The instant......
-
Atl. Coast Line R. Co v. Newton
...v. Va. Carolina Ry. Co., 102 Va. 914, 47 S. E. 99G, and which has since been approved in a long line of cases. See Lane Bros. v. Seak-ford, 106 Va. 93, 55 S. E. 556; Hot Springs Lumber Co. v. Revercomb, 106 Va. 176, 55 S. E. 580, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 894; Lynchburg Traction Co. v. Guill, 107 ......