Patton v. Stegall

• Decision Date: 21 June 1927
• Citation: 220 Ky. 674
• Parties: Patton v. Stegall.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

220 Ky. 674

Patton v. Stegall.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided June 21, 1927.

1. Master and Servant. — In action against employer for injuries to hand of employee in sawmill, petition alleging that servant's hand was caught in saw through negligence of master and fellow servants held to charge negligence in general terms sufficient as against demurrer.

2. Master and Servant. — In action for injuries to employee in sawmill, instruction authorizing verdict against employer if sawyer directed plaintiff to remove piece of timber from near saw, and plaintiff, following directions, was injured by failure of sawyer to exercise ordinary care, held error, where petition merely charged negligence in general terms.

3. Master and Servant. — In action for loss of fingers by minor employee in sawmill, in which petition merely charged general negligence, instruction permitting recovery, if plaintiff was inexperienced, and if sawyer, knowing danger and plaintiff's inexperience, negligently directed removal of piece of timber without warning, held error.

4. Master and Servant. — In action for injuries to employe in sawmill in attempting to remove piece of timber from near saw, no evidence of employer's breach of duty in directing removal, in failure to instruct employee, or in furnishing defective working place or tools, was admissible under mere allegation of general negligence.

5. Master and Servant. — Employee, in action for injuries, who desires to rely on provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act (Ky. Stats., sections 4880, 4882), as against plea of contributory negligence, must by his pleading show application of act to his case.

Appeal from Carter Circuit Court.

JOHN M. THEOBALD for appellant.

WAUGH & HOWERTON for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE LOGAN.

Reversing.

Hazel Stegall was 19 years of age when he was injured while working for appellant at his sawmill in Carter county. He lost two of the fingers of his left hand, and his thumb was also injured. His next friend instituted an action for him to recover damages for the injury, and the jury rendered a verdict in his favor for $2,250. The sawmill was in operation, cutting a very large log into lumber. A splinter dropped out of the log and fell near the saw. The sawyer stopped the carriage, and directed Stegall to take away the splinter. He picked up the splinter, and, in some way not fully explained, his had was drawn into the saw, which still continued to revolve after the carriage was stopped, and he thus received his injury.

It is exceedingly difficult to understand from the witnesses just how the injury was brought about. In his petition he alleged that he was inexperienced in sawmill work, and had never worked at a sawmill except a few days, and that at the time of his injury he was working under the directions of the sawyer who was the employee of the appellant in charge of the work. His cause of action is thus stated in the petition:

"He states that on the 25th day of March, 1924, and while employed at said sawmill and by and through the negligence of the defendant, his servants and employees, his left hand was caught in a circular saw and drawn into same, and the two middle fingers of his said hand were cut off and mangled, and his front finger cut and bruised and made stiff, and by reason of same he was made to suffer great physical pain and great mental pain and suffering, and the injury to the said hand lessened his power to earn money and rendered his hand and fingers ungainly and unsightly, and to his damage in the sum of $5,000.

"He states that the injury as set out above was due to the negligence and gross carelessness of the defendant, his servants and employees, and the said negligence and carelessness was the proximate cause of the said injury and damage."

A demurrer was filed to the petition and overruled. This was proper, as negligence was charged in general terms. Monroe v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co., 141 Ky. 549, 133 S.W....