Northern Alabama Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Beacham
| Citation | 140 Ala. 422,37 So. 227 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1904 |
| Parties | NORTHERN ALABAMA COAL, IRON & R. CO. v. BEACHAM. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.
Action by Samuel Beacham, by next friend, against the Northern Alabama Coal, Iron & Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
This action was brought by the appellee, Samuel Beacham, a minor by his next friend, against the Northern Alabama Coal, Iron & Railroad Company, and sought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff while in the employ of the defendant by reason of his having been changed from his regular place or kind of labor, and put to work in a more dangerous employment, whereby the plaintiff was negligently injured, etc. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The defendant requested among others, the general affirmative charge in its behalf and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give said charge. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeals, and assigns as error the several rulings of the trial court to which exceptions were reserved.
Goodhue & Blackwood, for appellant.
Dortch & Martin, for appellee.
On the aspect of the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff Beacham, a youth of 17 years of age, was employed by the defendant, the Northern Alabama, Coal, Iron & Railroad Company, as a "ratchet puller"--a borer or driller of holes for the reception of charges of dynamite to be exploded in the process of mining ore--and was changed from this work to the more dangerous service of charging such holes with dynamite and exploding the same. That he was injured by a premature explosion of one of these charges, while he was tamping it into a hole, is not disputed. Whether the defendant company is liable in damages for the injuries he sustained depends, other questions aside, upon whether it was at fault in putting him to this more dangerous employment without instructing him as to its dangers, and the manner and means of their avoidance. That he was not so instructed when he was put to this work on the occasion under inquiry, if he was put to it by defendant at all, the evidence shows without conflict. But, in our opinion, it is also free from conflict, and from basis for contrary inferences, that he already knew all about this work and its perils that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batesell v. American Zinc, Lead and Smelting Company
...which he fully appreciated to as great an extent as the defendant could have informed him was not negligence. N. Ala. Coal & Iron Co. v. Beacham, 140 Ala. 422, 37 So. 227. J. Robertson, P. J., concurs. Sturgis, J., dissents in a separate opinion. OPINION FARRINGTON, J. During the early hour......
-
Crossett Lumber Co. v. Land
...master has no notice that he is not fully competent and acquainted with such dangers." King v. Morgan, 48 C. C. A. 507; North Ala. etc., Co. v. Beacham, 37 So. 227; Malting Co. v. Lelevelt, 101 Ill.App. 320; Peterson v. New Pittsburg Co., 63 A. S. R. 289; Republic I. & S. Co. v. Ohler, 68 N......
-
Dallas Fair Park Amusement Ass'n v. Barrentine
...upon the master to instruct a minor servant when he could not enlarge the minor's knowledge in the premises. Northern Alabama Coal, Iron & R. R. Co. v. Beacham, 140 Ala. 422, 37 South. 227. An employer is not required to instruct a 14 year old boy of average intelligence of allowing a porti......
-
Brammer v. Pettyjohn
... ... 667, 18 L. R. A. 260; North Ala. R. R. Co. v ... Beacham, 140 Ala. 422, 37 So. 227; Moss v. Mosley ... (Ala.) 41 ... ...